What if New Labour had won the last&next election?

[RoddersUK]

I meet a lot of Public Service Workers in my profession and I am of the opinion that they are there because they aint good for anything else. They moan all the time about how difficult their job is and how poorly paid it is but the twatts never fucking leave it and go somewhere else, because they are no fucking good elsewhere. This is a fact.

[David Johnson]

On the subject of facts, RoddersUK, it is a fact that you stated the following

"The real cause of this problem is the sandal wearing left wing social minded bastards. They are the ones who over a period of time have adjusted the rules so that any arsehole with fuckall and never paid a penny towards the State can live the life of fucking Riley, high on the hog at our expense."

I have challenged you to explain how someone on JSA under 25 on ?51.85 a week and someone 25 or over on ?65.45 can "live the life of fucking riley".

And each time you run away and hide.

Are you going to give an explanation or are you going to run away again?

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

You see, still going on about the Cleggster. Give it a rest for christ's sake. I've no idea why you think I have to defend Nick Clegg for the whole duration of the coalition just because I voted Lib Dem. I was giving you a little advice, that's all, Johnson. Any good points you have are likely to be missed when you repeat yourself over and over and over on the same fucking subject. It just becomes white noise after a while.....and if you think white noise is some sort of victory for you then knock yourself out and carry on!

And as for the PH thing, it was trolling pure and simple. Goading someone hours after they were threatened of being banned, to me, is trolling. I don't know why you're bringing it back up here though. I'd forgotten all about it.

[max_tranmere]

Rodders, I worked as a Civil Servant for several years for a large Government department, located very near the Houses of Parliament. I agree with what you say, the Civil Service employs anybody and a large proportion of them would never get employment anywhere else.

Because money is shovelled in from the Treasury by the billion into these departments, and that will never stop, the people there dont have to justify their existance as much as people in the private sector do - somewhere that is vulnerable during recession times, a place that has to go out and earn its money.

During a lean period, where cuts have to be made across Whitehall, these departments do cut back on costs but never to the cost of the staff. A building or two may be given up, and all the staff squashed into the other buildings. The department I was in had literally more than 10,000 staff, most in Victoria and Westminster, and our office space allocations were tightened up. Offices that issued grants to businesses were told "we're winding up your expenditure budgets" - which means no more grants are issued to companies, but all the staff in that government department are retained, and most just sit there doing even less each day.

I always remember the 9-5 lot used to wander in about 9 or 9.15, chat for a bit, then start work about 9.45 (what I am saying here applied during 'busy' times when the department had lots of money, and also in the lean times when it didn't). Those who went to lunch from 1-2 usually stopped working and chatted for an hour from 12-1 because some people went out to lunch then and the floor was quieter so it seemed like a good time to natter about Eastenders or make personal phone calls, then go out for your 'hours lunch' after that. The afternoon 'working time' of 2-5 meant two or so hours of work then people would wind down from 4-5 whilst either doing little or no work, and chating some more. In some places this is called 'clock watching'.

The 8-4 crowd used to show up about 8.15 or 8.30, wait till the 9.00am lot turned up and then started working then. They would still bugger off at 4.00pm, usually having stopped doing anything about 3.45pm. I say the following based on A LOT of first-hand experience: the majority of Civil Servants and either very lazy, cut corners wherever possible, have little care about the job, and do as little as possible. Their jobs are protected and they are kept employed no matter what.

I left after a few years and went to work in the City. I genuinely worked hard in the Civil Service and cared about what I was doing. I stood out from most of the crowd I ever worked with. Honestly. In the City I earned more money but had to work even harder, and I always knew that my job could come to an end at quite short notice because those places are subject to market forces, whereas the staff in the Civil Service are not.

[one eyed jack]

Well since most people on here hate Labour Jim you've consolidated your position of popularity by playing to the masses. ..Again!

What !shitstorm! was you really expecting? Everybody loves you man.

Me? I dont think Labour were that bad and what makes me puke watching the news tonight is how some LibDem/Con dickhead goes on about cleaning up the mess Labour started.

How about just admitting the banks crashed and the government bailed their arses out and is making us all pay for it.

Every government bitches on about repairing the damage the last one did in office as a smokescreen for their inability to do what they promised the voters they would do.

The way I see it, the government haven't put everyone out of work. The banks have. Now we have to pay the price with cut backs.

And with cutbacks means more people out of work, so how is that helping people back into work

Its all bollocks mate and we're expected to suck it up and swallow it like in our movies!

[Deano!]

Max - I have found the same thing with public 'servants'.

I once spent a few unhappy months working in a public hospital medical instrument department. Wanting to make a good impression, I worked pretty hard but nothing heroic only to find that this generated concern that I was showing the rest up! They quite firmly told me to slow down or they wouldn't have enough work left over to justify doing Saturday morning overtime. Saturday overtime consisted of doing about 20 minutes worth of actual work over 5 hours and getting well over a day's normal pay for it.

They had every imaginable tool and machine at their disposal yet appreciated none of it and showed little interest in learning anything new. It made me angry to see the way permanent positions were reserved for their mates, while much better candidates were never allowed anything more than pissy temporary contracts.

[David Johnson]

"I meet a lot of Public Service Workers in my profession and I am of the opinion that they are there because they aint good for anything else."

Remind me again Rodders, is the UK armed forces privatised or paid for by the State?

Still waiting for your explanation of how to live the life of Riley on ?60 a week.

Cheers
D

[jimslip]

Funny how any negative comment against New Labour is either considered a "Rant" or from a "Daily Mail" reader.

Exactly the same labelling tactics used by the Stalinists when persecuting the Hungarians in the 1950's, calling them, "Fascists" and "Hooligans". and troublemakers, before imprisoning them and then subjecting them to torture.

Funnily enough The daily mail was perceived as a Tory hysterical rag in the old days, but thanks to New Labour taking away nearly all our freedoms and rights, the daily mail is now a radical protest medium! LOL

Luckily for all of us in porn, New labour will not see the light of day for another 10 years.

presumably this is daily Mail inspired:

[David Johnson]

"Funny how any negative comment against New Labour is either considered a "Rant" or from a "Daily Mail" reader.

Exactly the same labelling tactics used by the Stalinists when persecuting the Hungarians in the 1950's, calling them, "Fascists" and "Hooligans". and troublemakers, before imprisoning them and then subjecting them to torture."

A rant James is where you let off steam without any facts whatsoever. Your original message had not one single fact in it, just your usual tedious crap.

I agree that there were restrictions on civil liberties that Labour brought in, some of which I disagreed with. PS. You read the previous sentence Jim?

I note with interest that you only provide a link to civil liberties restrictions but make no mention at all of any of the facts in my response to you which I use to trash your arguments.

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=236056&t=236042

Presumably your diatribe against New Labour is in the hope that this new government will provide an antidote.

However since you are showing at least some sign in this latest message of using your brain, you may also like to have a look at this description of life under the Tories.

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/pamphlet/thatcher.htm

It is quite possible to argue that New Labour has merely carried on the restrictions on invididual liberties enforced by Thatcher.

And those of us that lived under the boot of Thatcherism may not remember it as a life of freedom and liberty.

Cheers
D

[jimslip]

Here's a picture of the mother of one of the Kursk submarine sailors being "Sedated" after her protest or rather, "Rant" regarding the death of her son.

Could this be how New Labour in 2020 might deal with people who protest, or rather, "Rant?" at their total destruction of our civil liberties?

[img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/890000/im ... nge150.jpg[/img]

David, can you see yourself and others administering sedation (Or worse) to me at some time in the future, on behalf of New Labour, for my "Rants?" You certainly do not tolerate dissent from the "Party Line" do you?!confused!

You MUST always have the last word, mustn't you........or else!!nervous!