Originally Posted by mertle (Post 35415537)

Although good news would possible argue this more down to we heading into summer and seaside towns recruiting for the season. Not withstanding those theme parks which shut during winter.

Originally Posted by LexDiamond (Post 35415513)

Please outline the major policies of the parties you advocate.

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35415483)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35415533)

Some good news at last.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35399364)

However, back on the plane of existence we actually exist on

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35415612)

Lies, damn lies, statistics.

From the ONS data itself, although you won't see anyone talking about this as it's 'racist'.



Also from ONS data and I hope you'll hear plenty about this.





In short to describe this as good news is farcical, jobs are inevitably poorer quality, less hours, and are going to probably cheaper EU migrants rather than our own people, hence the welfare bill continues to rise.

This is an absolute unmitigated disaster, coalition are so horny over corporatist supply-side policy they're doing nothing to increase demand, quite the opposite their squeezing us through tax rises and entitlement cuts.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35415621)

The only way there is going to be a increase in the number of decent jobs is when there is radical reform

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35415621)

The only way there is going to be a increase in the number of decent jobs is when there is radical reform

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35415621)

The only way there is going to be a increase in the number of decent jobs is when there is radical reform

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35415678)

Sorry, Alan, but that statement is a content-free soundbite, imho, along the lines of "Education, education, education" - it sounds as if it means something, but there is no substance behind it.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35415690)

There's no way for any government, of any colour, to be able to suddenly magic up a whole economy consisting only of well paid interesting jobs. It is a sad fact that most people do not have and can never acquire the skills to handle say architecture, computer programming, game design, brain surgeon or any number of challenging occupations and so will always be doing the boring mundane jobs that keep the country running.

We can't do without those jobs either: Baldrick the dung gatherer was an important man in his time, though bady paid, just as the trainee that dishes up your Big Mac or the guy painting the white stripes down your street.

In a global economy there will also be a tendency to level down the pay in most jobs towards the rates that are paid in say China. When those places become too expensive there's still the huge untapped cheap labour resovior in Africa.

You can't pull up the drawbridge and try to be insulated from the rest of the world. In that way you go (relatively) backwards like NK or Burmah. Russia has finally realised this but only now has stopped making Lada's based on a 60's Fiat design.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416002)

At least Blair inceased spending and standards in Education.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416002)

What I am calling for is global labour and wage (along with pension) standards so that no one is exploted and we all get a high standard of living even if it ends up in resulting in a global government

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416002)

At least Blair inceased spending and standards in Education

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35416014)

Standards??? Have you read the drivel that passes for a significant chunk of school leavers English or Maths these days?



Ah the broken record. I'd forgotten how hopelessly out of touch with reality it was. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35416030)

O that's ok then we will forget about the lie that sent hundreds of men to the deaths. And his reckless spending started off the problems we have now

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416035)

What about the Building for Schools programme, better test results etc, sure it is still not good enough, but it was better than Major for sure

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416052)

The school building program was poorly managed ,poorly budgeted and a total mess ,and that was from a recent admission from Stephen Twigg



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16566635



Yes we needed the investment but in a more controlled manner over a longer period and not in such a reckless manner

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416062)

Like I said, it's is still not good enough and anyway, Labour did improve education to lets say the Tories of 1979 to 1990

But at least thery were spending (if rather badly)rather than not spend at all

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35415621)

The only way there is going to be a increase in the number of decent jobs is when there is radical reform

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416062)

Labour did improve education to lets say the Tories of 1979 to 1990

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416062)

But at least thery were spending (if rather badly)rather than not spend at all

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416083)

I would sooner no spending took place than bad spending .Any government voted into power have a obligation to the public to spend the publics money wisely .To have the attitude that money can be spent with no proper oversight is ok because it's getting spent ,is 100% wrong and quite frankly the previous labour government ,more specifically the individuals involved, should be taken to task over much more than they have been .

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416002)

What I am calling for is global labour and wage (along with pension) standards so that no one is exploted and we all get a high standard of living even if it ends up in resulting in a global government

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35416089)

As I said, try reading applications or forms submitted by recent school leavers. In a lot of cases they are a barely legible hodgepodge of poor spelling, terrible grammar and txt speak.

When migrants with English as a second or even third language can perform better than people who have gone through 10+ years of schooling in the UK you can see one reason employers would rather give them a job rather than a school leaver.



Yay! Solid gold toilet seats all round. Can't have any money left unspent. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416091)

So you mean how it was supposed to be under the communist system??

I tell you what Alan. You keep telling us that you are rich, so why don't you spread some of your wealth about?

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416094)

Have you seen the standards in the Thatcher/Major era?, they were not that good either and I did not sugggest that it was good, only better (than theb Tories)

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416094)

Clearly you have forgotten the improvements to health for example

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35416097)

Yes, I'm a product of that era and have seen a decline that's even more profound over the last few years.



And what does that have to do with the topic at hand? :confused:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416103)

To show that there have been improvements to the UK in the Labour Government of 1997-2011 when compaired to the Tory Government of 1979-1997

Originally Posted by Derek (Post 35416106)

The topic is unemployment. Whether it rises, falls, stays constant and the reasons and possible solutions to it.

It isn't a contest to see which government was better.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416094)

Yet again you accuse me of being a Communist, just becuase I stand up for the rights of the working people, I am fairly wealthy (I did not use the term Rich), but I am not a millionaire even, and I'm certainly not rich enough to influence public policy

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416108)

My point was that only Radical Reform of Democracy and Capitalism can fix the unemployment problem

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416109)

Alan, take a look at communist ideals, and then compare them to the rubbish that you spout, and you will find them very similar. Apart from the fact that you actually want a class system as far as transport goes, where the rich fly first class, but the poor have to hitch hike.

I stand up for the rignts of workers, and I am a trade unionist. And one thing the unions certainly don't need is idiots who try to attach themselves to them, and actually discredit the unions with their loony left rantings, and support for violence. I mean who is going to support any union that is forced to take industrial action, when there is and idiot making out that he represents the union, but is so millitant that they can't see common sense or compromise?

To be honest what you say sounds more like immature ramblings, with snippets taken from various people who you admire. But you don't even realise yourself that many of the things that you come out with actually contradict each other.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416109)

Radical reform in one place often causes problems in another. What is needed is gradual reform considering all the implications.

The biggest change needed, that will help the economy, and create employment, would be for those in power to stop acting for the good of themselves and their friends, and to act for the good of the whole country.

If the corruption in contracts for local and national government was sorted out, then that alone would save billions for the economy. But their would also be many corrupt people in power who would lose their jobs, and possibly be prosecuted. So the cover up will probably continue.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35416127)

It obviously escapes the limited intellect of some budding world dictators around here, but BAD, uncontrolled borrowing and spending is what got us into the mess we're in.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416117)

Last time I checked I do not adovocate the forced removal of people to prison camps just because they slightly disagreed with the system, also I do adocate 100% nationlisation, 5 year plans, forced people to be moved to the rural areas and starved to death

Last time I checked I do not advocate the forced removal of people to prison camps just because they slightly disagreed with the system, also I do advocate 100% nationalisation, 5 year plans, forced people to be moved to the rural areas and starved to death and lastly, for their leaders to live a billionaire jet set lifestyle or even a dictatorship of the proletariat :mad: :td:

So you call anyone who is prepared to stand up for the rights of the working people as “idiots”, “loony left”, “Communists”, “Terrorists” and even “Extremist”, all the people you describe want better rights, better wages and better pensions for the working people, even it it also includes boosting the ego of those leaders :mad: :td:

So while you defend a failed system, I defend a failed people :angel:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416134)

For God sake, it was Free Market Capitalism and Neo Liberal Democracy that caused it, the spending was there to keep the working people on side to a failed system :mad: :td:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416138)

Are you now copying and pasting your rants? :D

You are comparing Russian communism to true communism. Russian communism wasn't true communism, because people were not equal, and the leadership oppressed anyone who didn't agree with them. And they used violence and oppression to carry out their agenda. This is much the same as the violence, terrorism, and murder that you advocate on your twitter and facebook posts.

In theory we would all like to be equal, and the wealth to be spread out across the population in a much fairer way. But a successful economy can never exist this way, because there would be no incentive to set up and grow successful companies if the owners were on similar wages to those who they employ on the shop floor. So British business wouldn't be competitive in a global marketplace. And if employment was 100% (including unproductive workers who don't want to work), just so that everyone had a job, then wage bills would go through the roof. And so would inflation due to massive production costs.

You really need to look at all your rants, and put them all together. And then work out how they could actually work in a successful economy. Because from the way most people with any common sense see it, there are far too many conflicts in your rants. And they haven't been worked out with any degree of intelligence.

Reforms are needed to improve the economy, and bring down unemployment. But they need to be properly thought out...unlike many of yours!

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------



So you don't agree with "Free Market Capitalism", which is the only way for a country to have a successful economy in a global market. And you don't agree with "Democracy", so you agree with a dictatorship that forces the nation to comply with their wishes?......this is sounding like communist Russia again :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416138)

So you don't agree with "Free Market Capitalism", which is the only way for a country to have a successful economy in a global market. And you don't agree with "Democracy", so you agree with a dictatorship that forces the nation to comply with their wishes?......this is sounding like communist Russia again :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416151)

What conflicts do you see by the way?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416154)

need we say more

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416035)

What about the Building for Schools programme, better test results etc, sure it is still not good enough, but it was better than Major for sure

Also you are wrong, I'm not the one who is out of touch with reality, but there are a lot of CF users who are

---------- Post added at 10:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 ----------



If you are talking about the Iraq War (which killed hundreds of thousands by the way), sure it might have been a lire, but at least the Saddam Government was gone, the only issue I have was that it was done very, vey badly

As for the "Reckless Spending", it was needed for the underinvestment of the Tory Government of 1979-1997 in public servcies

Also thw Economic crisis was most caused by Free Market Capitalism and Neo-Liberal Democracy (Which Blair kept!)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35416165)

Half of the BSF was done under PFI, which just put off-loaded the debt to future generations - so not only did we, as a country, spend more than we could afford, we also indebted future generations.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35416165)

Half of the BSF was done under PFI, which just put off-loaded the debt to future generations - so not only did we, as a country, spend more than we could afford, we also indebted future generations.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416156)

There are more types of Capitalism than "Free Market" and more types of Democracy than "Neo Liberal" :mad: :td:

What I am calling for is a better form of Capitalism and a better form of Democracy :angel:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35416171)

If I remember rightly, your "better form" of Democracy was Autocracy*.....

*a system of government by one person with absolute power

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416173)

No, a form of democracy that cares more for the working people and less for the wealthy and major businesses :mad: :td:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416175)

To me that statement shows how little you understand of democracy or any other kind of 'acy or 'ism
Democracy has nothing to do with how workers are treated ,it's how democracy is applied that makes the difference and that is down to individuals and how much people use democracy to reach a consensus of opinion to form a government/ruling body

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35416165)

Half of the BSF was done under PFI, which just put off-loaded the debt to future generations - so not only did we, as a country, spend more than we could afford, we also indebted future generations.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416173)

No, a form of democracy that cares more for the working people and less for the wealthy and major businesses :mad: :td:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416175)

To me that statement shows how little you understand of democracy or any other kind of 'acy or 'ism
Democracy has nothing to do with how workers are treated ,it's how democracy is applied that makes the difference and that is down to individuals and how much people use democracy to reach a consensus of opinion to form a government/ruling body

Originally Posted by Pog66 (Post 35416185)

this from someone who freely admits to being in the top 0.6% of the UK's wealth?

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35394637)

I do give money to the homeless and direct them to charities, but the money of the rich will make a much bigger diffrence tham me alone

Also under a "World government" I will make it clear that we are in power not for our sake, nut for the sake for Humans and Earth. There will still be a independent media (all under the BBC), if they find sometihng wrong, they can report it

I am not a extremist, i have not anything in relation to communism and facism, all I have said Is that we need radcial reform to democracy and capitalism via democratic means or not :mad: :td:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35394573)

I do not have much excess income and I do not deliberately avoid or take advantage tax avoiding schemes. Also the UK average wage is too low for anyone to live on, pay the mortgage etc and for goodness sake I am not part of the problem since I am not a member of the 1%.

I am not keen on giving money to charities because they are wasteful and they do not help develop nations, no nation has become a major power was developed with the help of charity.

Even If I donate all the money I have, it will not make much of a difference, if all the rich did though is that would make a difference.

What you do not get is that most of the world’s wealth is in the hands of the wealthy (which I am not a member of). So what we need is a world government and radical reforms to democracy and capitalism

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35394611)

I pay all my taxes and I have made it clear why I do not give to charity, becuase it does not make a diffence, becuase so much money is wasted on corruption etc

This is nothing more that a attempt by the defenders of a failed system to move the agurement away from the real issues! :mad: :td:

The trouble with you lot is that you are lying to yourselfs! :D

The only people on cloud cukoo land are defenders of a failed economic, social and poltical system :mad: :td:

The only people with nonsensical postings are defenders of a failed system :td: :mad:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35416183)

But unfortunately, Alan, imho your definition of democracy is where you get what you want, and sod anyone else's point of view.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35416183)

But unfortunately, Alan, imho your definition of democracy is where you get what you want, and sod anyone else's point of view.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416184)

And being government contracts, we (the tax payer) were probably overcharged on a massive scale.

Originally Posted by Pog66 (Post 35416185)

this from someone who freely admits to being in the top 0.6% of the UK's wealth?

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416193)

My definiton of democracy is were the working people get the decent jobs and the biggest say in the way things are run

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35416192)

Ahem.....

Claims to be....;)

Sometimes, his statements contradict this (and each other)...

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416194)

And using violence, terrorism, rioting, and murder to impose it.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416199)

That is not democracy Alan ,i'm not sure what it is but it's definately not democracy

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416200)

Its a democracy, but in favour of the working people :angel:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416212)

Then it's not a democracy .A democracy gives ALL citizens equal rights and does not favour on class of society over another .To reform democracy changes it to something else .The only thing that can change is the way that democracy is applied NOT what is is

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416200)

Its a democracy, but in favour of the working people :angel:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416217)

Which is what I am saying, it should no longer favour anyone, unlike now where it favours the rich and businesses
.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416221)

You are contradicting yourself

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35416226)

Specify "decent job"

Do you mean unrealistic pay for doing an unproductive or boring job or do you mean an interesting and well paid job? If it's the second who's going to do all the boring and uninteresting jobs of which most are?

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416225)

I meant more in favour for the working people by being less in favour for the wealthy and major businesses

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35416232)

So how much do you think a waiter in your restaraunt should be paid? And then how could you possibly afford to eat there? Or the guy sweeping the street and your council tax?

If everybody's paid more and then it costs everybody more then your back where you started. It's called inflation.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35416231)

For the last time Democracy by defintion favours ALL citizens EQUALY.Anything else is NOT democracy.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416193)

My definiton of democracy is were the working people get the decent jobs and the biggest say in the way things are run

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416242)

That's nothing to do with democracy......HUGE FAIL Alan!!!!!

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416200)

I have not ACUTELY done any of those things! :mad: :td:

Yet again you have a wrong impression of me! :D

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416200)

Its a democracy, but in favour of the working people :angel:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416227)

More well paid jobs, it does not matter what job it is

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416243)

Yes it does, what the point of democracy if you can't have a high a growing standard of living? (and it goes against you and in favour of others)

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416243)

Yes it does, what the point of democracy if you can't have a high a growing standard of living? (and it goes against you and in favour of others)

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35416254)

Nobody's going to be as well off as you think they'll be under your equality system but I guess that doesn't fit in with your narrow perspective.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416248)

You have encouraged people to do all of those things, which makes you just as bad. In fact it makes you worse, because you want other people to do your dirty work for you, because you don't have the bottle.




No Alan, it is absolutely nothing to do with democracy.

---------- Post added at 14:38 ---------- Previous post was at 14:35 ----------



Where does the money come from to pay for those well paid jobs??? If you increase wages, then you increase production costs, and then increase inflation.

---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------



Get a dictonary Alan :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35416254)

I know you hate facts Alan but consider this table:

Rank Place GVA per capita
in pounds (dollars in parenthesis)
1 England 20 442 ($31,545)
2 Scotland 19 744 ($30,468)
3 Northern Ireland 15 795 ($24,374)
4 Wales 14 842 ($22,903)

And by region:

1 Greater London 34,200 ($52,776)
2 South East England 20,923 ($32,287)
3 East of England 18,591 ($28,689)
4 South West England 18,211 ($28,102)
5 East Midlands 17,349 ($26,772)
6 North West England 17,263 ($26,639)
7 West Midlands 16,788 ($25,906)
8 Yorkshire and the Humber, England 16,569 ($25,568)
9 North East England 15,621 ($24,106)

This is what each person in each area would get if everybody was paid the same according to the total income of each area. i.e. No rich at all.

Nobody's going to be as well off as you think they'll be under your equality system but I guess that doesn't fit in with your narrow perspective.

Table source

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35416320)

You appear to be confusing politics with economics.....

Democracy is, imho, about involvement in the political process through delegated or representative means by universal suffrage - what has that got to do with 'a high a growing standard of living' (sic)?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35416330)

Or, to put it another way:


Well worth reading in full:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...he-arithmetic/

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416605)

For godness sake, all I have done is encorage people to stand up and demand real and radcial change in favour of the working people, the reason why I have suggested these methods becuase they are the only way it is going to be possible :mad: :td:

Remember the term:

You provide the pictures, I will provide the War

Also the democracy we have is in favour of the rich, I want that to change :(

As for the money, it comes from the WEALTHY and BUSINESSES :mad: :td:

---------- Post added at 09:45 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------



Like you and your friends, you make wrong claims about me, I have not called for people to be as well off, only to have a decent wage to have a decent lifestyle, in other terms a more fianancialy equal place :angel:

---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------



Because a lot of "Democracies" are corrupted by the wealthy and major businesses so that it can be in favour of them (and make then richer) and against the working people (and make then poorer) :mad: :td:

---------- Post added at 09:54 ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 ----------



Like I have said, we need more that just talking money off the rich (like investing into the economy), but it would help, anyway does it count Tax Evasion and Avoidance?

Remember that newspaper is owned by Billionaires David and Frederick Barclay :D

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35416622)

Alan, I think you need to go back into class, as you obviously have a huge amount to learn. Then you can come back to the forum once you know what you are talking about.

Run along now, the teacher is ringing the bell :D

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35416629)

It seems that you and your friends are the ones that need to go back to scholl, with all your false claims, and accusations of me being a

"Communist"

"Dictator"

"Terrorist"

"Extremist"

"Dangerous"

"Looney Left"

Good Luck in class :D

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701 (Post 35416635)

Yup a list that sums you up perfectly, I am beginning to wonder if believe in any of it or just get off on the reactions it gives you.