Posted by JLW on Tuesday Feb 21, 13:42
John Leech is placed 260 out of 688 MPs for responding to letter from his constituents via WriteToThem.com, according to the 2005 MP Responsiveness League Table.
John Leech received 114 messages, and replied to 75.3%* of them within two to three weeks of the initial letter being sent.
Update: Keith Bradley (previous MP for Manchester Withington) came 137th – he responded to 85.7% of the 62 letters sent within two to three weeks (67%–96%). You can see the table at www.writetothem.com/stats/2005/mps.
* This figure has a 95% confidence interval of 65%–84%.
This means that WriteToThem.com are 95% certain that the true values lie between the two limits of the confidence intervals i.e. between 65% and 84% based on the data available.
+ tags coming soon
( 183 Comments )
Thomas
Tuesday Feb 21, 22:19
I'm still waiting for a response to my email sent at the start of January via the site. I only got a confirmation recently after emailing John again to ask him whether he had received the email.
Having said that, he was very quick to respond to my request about his written question on NHS dentists.
Alan
Tuesday Feb 21, 23:51
Not as good as Keith Bradley however who responded to all corresponence sent to him and had an open office!!
When you've got a budget of around £60-70 K + for staff there isn't any reason why Leech should not be responding to all constituent letters. Clearly starring in panto's is more important!! Someone needs to get their priorities sorted!!
Thomas
Wednesday Feb 22, 00:33
Keith Bradley came 137th. He responded to 85.7% of the 62 letters sent within two to three weeks (67%–96%)
Val
Wednesday Feb 22, 19:46
Apparently John actually receives several hundred e-mails and letters every single week. That makes the "Write to Them" samples of 62 messages (Keith) and 114 messages (John) look rather paltry.
Also I'm told that if an MP receives a message via "Write to them", replies to the constituent, receives another message from the constituent saying "thanks" and doesn't then reply to the thank-you message, that counts as a "failure to reply"!
John Leech has an "open office" in the constituency where residents can walk in off the street and his staff will deal with the query.
He will also do appointments in his office if that suits residents better.
And as well as the MP's surgeries on Fridays, he also does a surgery on Nell Lane estate every Saturday...
Finally, he drives a six-year-old Daewoo, not a luxury car as alleged by egregious Labour liars in the local weekly freesheet!
Not sure why Alan is so obssessed with John's hobbies, I think it's quite refreshing that though an elected MP, he still tries to carry on with some local theatre work.
I don't expect Labour diehards to welcome any of this as it doesn't fit their version of "reality" but there you go!
AHR
Wednesday Feb 22, 20:12
Frankly I don't care what Jogn is up to as long as he is campaigning and political. What I have the problem is when the lib dems such as John indulge is shameless electioneering coming up with different policies for different streets. What I have the problem with is when the lib dems put out leaflets that contain blatent lies. Thats what makes me angry. Quite frankly his private life is his, no one elses and I don't care as long as he does his job properly. However, I think that by being a councillor and an MP there is an obvious conflict of interest and there is no way that he can be doing his job properly.
Thomas
Wednesday Feb 22, 20:59
It would be unusual to send a reply via WriteToThem.com - John usually replies by email and this makes it easy to just hit the reply button. However, I agree that it isn't likely to represent the majority of his contact.
John does seem to make himself quite available, but it can't be said that it is his number one priority - his surgeries are at times when most people work, he took a long time to open his office and doesn't reply to all letters promptly.
Alan
Wednesday Feb 22, 23:34
Val, I'm not obsessed with his hobbies, my point is that he is performing poorly as an MP and with this in mind spends his spare time dressing up as a chimney sweep. Explain to me what John has done over the past year other than play football, star in panto and help block essential and sensible government legislation.
I also have many interests outside of work but my priority is my job and if something needs to be done I get it done and I get it done to the highest standard ( and I work in the private sector, not the public). My belief is that since John won office he has done very little and that perhaps it is time he took his position a little more seriously!
AHR
Thursday Feb 23, 00:58
If anyone has a problem with what John is doing heres a very effective suggestion. Start to get rid of some of the lib dem councillors in Withington!! The way that he got that seat was by eroding labours vote in local government. Oh and lieing, misleading the public, partaking in a witchhunt against Keith Bradley e.t.c.
Alan
Thursday Feb 23, 01:29
I genuinely have no idea why the Lib Dems are so popular; their policies (if that's what you can call them) have no solid foundation and across the country they have shown themselves to be a complete shambles both personally and professionally. Although I too have serious issues with the way in which the Lib Dems fought the general election campaign in 2005 we must now put that behind us. People in South Manchester need focus on what is right for them both locally and nationally. The Lib Dems are not delivering; they act more like a pressure group than a political party and people have to realise that if they want firm, and effective, change for the better then they should vote Labour at the local elections!
AHR
Thursday Feb 23, 04:46
Could not agree more, though my anger over Manchester Withington has not yet ceased, I have put it behind us. 1/3 of the council is up in Manchester and I think that in Gorton we can only make gains. There is nothing left to lose. I know that labour have now stopped being complacent and realise that if they want that council then they have got to fight for it. The lib dems have no coherant policies, they only oppose and it is time that we conveyed that to the electorate. The leaflet that they have put through in Fallowfield is basically incoherant crap. I think withington will stay lib dem; but with the right approach Gorton could be made into one of the safest seats in the country. This should be labour's plan:
1)Better candidates
2)Better campaigning
3)Expose the fact that a lib dem controlled council like in Newcastle, like in Leeds will not work and local people deserve better
Thomas
Thursday Feb 23, 05:22
The reason the Lib Dems are so popular is because there is no alternative. Labour are in power, and everyone remembers the Tories, so who do you turn to? To be honest the Lib Dems are the only alternative, not the "real" alternative.
AHR
Thursday Feb 23, 06:05
But how can people vote for a party that just oppose, oppose, oppose? Someone please tell me!! At least labour have some positive policies. I suppose people vote for them because they don't want the tories in power even if they have gone all liberal and they are annoyed with labour over Iraq. Its not even thir national policies I have a problem with, its when they deceive people by giving out leaflets that to put it bluntly are full of absolute crap.
Anon
Thursday Feb 23, 14:54
I agree that the Lib Dems leaflets are full of lies on occassions. But then look at the manefesto and policies of the Labour party over the years. Look at policies on GM crops, on WMD in Iraq?
AHR
Thursday Feb 23, 22:00
Yes but labour in general say what they are going to do and then do it. E.g to create greater respect and reduce anti social behaviour. They then set about doing it. I juts don't see how any of the lib dems 'policies' if you can call them that actually work in practice.
Alan
Thursday Feb 23, 23:54
AHR, they don't/ wouldn't!
peter h
Friday Feb 24, 05:12
so what are we supposed to do when we are disgusted with Labour over Iraq?
Vote for them? Get real.
After they've taken us to war on a lie?
When we watch them wiggle and squirm rather than having the moral courage to stand up and condemn the atrocious behaviour of America?
This is a Labour party , a LABOUR party, a party that's supposed to stand up for truth and justice for ordinary people, not being able to bring itself to condemn Guantanamo Bay, shuffling uneasily and staring at its shoes and mumbling about it being an "anomaly".
You guys rabbit on about some supposed pecadilloes by Lib Dems in some minor election leaflet that only you guys read any way, and question John Leech's probity, and completely bloody ignore the huge, murderous lies which YOUR party leaders uttered in order to drag us into Iraq.
Get a sense of proportion, for God's sake.
Margaret Thatcher recently said that her greatest achievement eas New Labour.
That says it all. You trumpet the minimum wage as if it were some kind of achievement. £10 might be an achievement. Reasonable house prices for all might be an achievement, pensions keeping up with wages might be an achievement, free higher education might be an achievement, good publicly owned public transport might be an achievement, the best health service in Europe might be an achievement, closing the gap between rich and poor might be an achievement, a sense of community might be an achievement, keepimg manufacturing jobs in UK might be an achievement, ensuring key industries and public utilities are owned by the people might be an achievement. All of those would have been targets if the Labour party really was the Labour party instead of being hijacked by a bunch of subthatcherite mutant hypocrites who think that socialism is a some kind of bad smell.
And all you guys seem interested in is the make of your MP's car, or why he supported complaints about pigeonshit.
Alan
Friday Feb 24, 13:54
You sound like a Lib Dem Peter, didn't they promise all that at the last election!!!!
Tom Steinberg
Friday Feb 24, 19:40
http://www.mysociety.org
I'm the director of mySociety - we run writetothem.com . I am posting here in a strictly non-partisan fashion purely to deal with erroneous and potentially damaging claims about WriteToThem.com
>That makes the "Write to Them" samples of 62 messages (Keith) and 114 messages (John) look rather paltry.
'Rather paltry' is not a valid statistical rebuttal of the sample. We do not print scores for MPs for whom the sample sizes are too small. For those that are large enough to be useful we calculate and print our 95% confidence intervals for each MP. In short, we explain exactly how valid the data is. We will gladly reveal the precise workings to anyone interested in this area of statistics.
>Also I'm told that if an MP receives a message via "Write to them", replies to the constituent, receives another message from the constituent saying "thanks" and doesn't then reply to the thank-you message, that counts as a "failure to reply"!
This is completely wrong. Messages after the initial communication simply travel by normal email (or post, or phone) and have nothing to do with WriteToThem.
>It would be unusual to send a reply via WriteToThem.com
It would not be unusual - it would be impossible, this is not a service we offer.
yours,
Tom Steinberg
End James Chapman Kelly Petition
Sunday Feb 26, 04:32
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/endjck/
Please sign the above petition. We propose to end Mr. Chapman-Kelly's weekly column in the SMR and give it to Mr John Leech MP so that he can keep us informed of his work as our parliamentarian ad to hold him to account. Sign at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/endjck/
Cheers,
Chair of the End JCK campaign
AHR
Monday Feb 27, 21:09
Slightly off tack here. Is it just me or does anyone else find the South Manchester reporter quite a biased newspaper. I know KB had a lot of problems with it; but I have never actually seen anything negative about JL in the entire paper. Interesting? No?
Chris Ledgerwood
Monday Feb 27, 23:26
I liked the story they ran on John buying a flat in Battersea....hot news that!
I notice this week that Zalzala still won't go quietly.
Dave
Tuesday Feb 28, 01:33
It's no shock that a newspaper has favourites. Just have to look at how the nationals support certain parties openly over other parties. Daily Mail has always been biased to the Tories, Sun likes to back whoever it thinks is going to win the election, etc etc
peter h
Thursday Mar 02, 01:35
SMR is , if anything, biased against JL, given the amount of bilge it prints from the like of Chris Paul. It ised to print a lot of little stories showing KB at local events. It does not do the same for JL, even though he is very active locally.
AHR
Thursday Mar 02, 04:48
Whats wrong with Chris. He did the best he could possibly do for Keith Bradley, despite the fact that KB was a boring complacent blairite although he was very nice!! SMR has just printed JL in a panto for goodness sake. Most people I know labour & non labour think that the leadership must be on JL's campaign team in Withington.
peter h
Sunday Mar 05, 02:25
how unsurprising to see a Labour cabinet minister married to a lawyer specialising in tax avoidance. What is it with this cabinet and berlusconi? Remember Blair going on holiday to his villa?
Thomas
Sunday Mar 05, 04:52
Perhaps even less suprising is the Lib Dems voting to privatise Royal Mail...
Vera
Sunday Mar 05, 16:23
Why do the Lib Dems want to privatise the post office - they were calling for subsidisation for post offices a few months ago. I'm shocked and angry that they have made this U-Turn: one week they want to save them, the next they want a Thatcherite privatisation of something that is needed by so many people - private companies are not going to keep things running if they don't make a profit.
AHR
Monday Mar 06, 21:38
The lib dems make U turns. It is called being a party of protest. Never make the mistake of thinking that they are any more socialist than new labour.
AHR
Tuesday Mar 07, 03:50
I would like to do something that I may never ever do again in my entire life. Say thank you to John Leech. Thank you John for signing EDM 1397 and joining with the political left and the student movement in saying that we CANNOT take the cap off fees. Thanks to the lib dems in general for this stance and hopefully the fight can still b won.
peter h
Tuesday Mar 07, 04:51
Get your facts right people. Lib Dems have not advocated privatisation of Post Office. Under the plan, a "shared ownership model" for Royal Mail will be established with the Government and a Royal Mail staff trust maintaining a 51 per cent majority share, while the remaining shares will be sold directly to staff, investors and offered for general sale.
Given that Labour has opened up the mail delivery market and is demanding that Royal Mail competes with private companies, it will have to restructure itself any way.
And don't forget that thousands of sub post offices have been shut under Labour's tutelage.
Given that, and the wholesale sell-offs of public services by both labour and conservatives raising money to fund their mickey mouse economics, it's a bit rich to criticise Lib Dems for following similar models.
Personally, I despise all the selloffs by whomever does it. But the guilty parties todate have not been Lib Dems.
Dave
Tuesday Mar 07, 16:12
And Tory Blair's "PFI" isn't just another name for "privatisation"? I am not a big fan of privatisation in any form, so "Labour", the Torys and the Lib Dem have all got similar policies in my opinion in this respect!
AHR
Tuesday Mar 07, 23:58
Bit like top up fees!
peter h
Wednesday Mar 08, 04:22
The Joseph Rowntree Trust has just done a major research into why the percentage of people voting keeps dropping.
Oddly enough, it isn't apathy. One of the main reasons is that all the parties are too similar on too many issues. I suppose privatisation is one of them.
AHR
Wednesday Mar 08, 05:25
Strange thing is that at the last election there was remarkable differences . . .
Dave
Wednesday Mar 08, 15:56
Hence why I voted for the Lib Dems for the first time in my live, as I couldn't tell the difference between tory and tory... oops I mean Labour!
peter h
Thursday Mar 09, 04:24
There's an old adage that oppositions don't win elections.....governments lose them.
I'm willing to bet that most people who voted Lib Dem for the first time at the last election werent really voting for Lib Dems. They were protest voting against Labour, but couldnt bring themselves to vote Tory. My vote was certainly a protest vote against what Labour has turned into under Blair. It so happens we had a good strong Lib Dem candidate with a good local record, but it was still a vote against Labour rather than for him or Lib Dems.
Thomas
Thursday Mar 09, 07:06
What do you think will cause the "protest" voters to vote Labour again? A change in leader? A change in Government? A change in candidate? Some other thing? I'd be interested to hear your opinions.
Poppy
Thursday Mar 09, 18:28
Is JL literate?
peter h
Thursday Mar 09, 19:06
Iraq must be the single largest factor . Not just the fact of the invasion, but the arrogant manner in which we were lied to, the sycophancy towards a far-right US administration, and so forth.
That destroys trust. I don't know how you get that back. Blair has to go at the very least, but I honestly think Labour needs a time in opposition to rediscover itself. Just look at Hewitt on TV talking about NHS. It's plainly in financial crisis, yet, instead of humbly accepting that, she spouts endless condescending drivel , talking to the reporters, and therefore the viewers/electorate , as if they were 4 year olds. Labour has too many spokesmen who don't know how to talk straight and openly. They've had too much coaching from spin doctors and they just come over as being arrogant liars. Pity.
AHR
Friday Mar 10, 01:08
Will the lib dems gain control of Manchester city council in 2007?
peter h
Friday Mar 10, 02:03
no.
AHR
Friday Mar 10, 16:45
I wouldn't b so sure!
Alan
Saturday Mar 11, 03:50
Lets hope they don't we have all seen what Lib Dem councils in other parts of the UK lead to!!
peter h
Saturday Mar 11, 13:45
yes alan. they lead to better government
peter h
Saturday Mar 11, 16:48
but don't worry. manchester is full of thickos who'd vote for micky mouse as long as he was labour. And Micky wouldnt feel out of place
Alan
Sunday Mar 12, 00:54
Would you seriously be happy with those cretins in charge of the council!! It's one thing to protest vote Peter but lets start getting real!
peter h
Sunday Mar 12, 05:17
yes alan I would. And they're not cretins. They understand more about grasssroots politics than labour, and that matters. But they won't get into power in manchester so its hypothetical.
AHR
Monday Mar 13, 03:50
How dare u b so prejudiced as to call everyone in Manchester thick. What gives you the right to say that? It may not be really affluent; but that doesn't make it any worse than anywhere else. You know what, people in Manchester have voted labour because they gave us the commonwealth games and have regenerated the city and now people feel proud to live here. If all lib dems are as far up their own arse as you are, then they better not take control of the council.
peter h
Monday Mar 13, 05:14
I'm not a lib dem, mate. Been a Labour supporter for 40 years.
Yippee for the Commonwealth Games, just like Nero used to do to keep his subjects quiet.
As for regeneration, do you mean the £250 000 flats in city centre that ordinary people can't afford to buy? Or the councile houses on sale round here for £150 000? Or Harvey Nicks perhaps? Or giving that nice commonwealth games stadium away to some football club? Brilliant stewarship of the publice purse, eh?
Or how about a police force with just about the worst clearup rates in the country, or those chic little spots - all with labour councillors, with some of the lowest life expectancy in UK, or all those secondary schools , none of which can even get up to the national average for GCSEs? Or the gun crime in Moss Side?
How about the "regeneration" in Moston, Gorton, Openshaw, Miles Platting, Droyslden, Openshaw, and so forth? Proud of that are you?
Or how about or wonderful manufacturing base? All those maginificent factories feeding , house and clothing the world!!
Of course Labour have done some good things. But don't give me this rose-tinted spectacles crap.
And as for "being up my own arse", well thanks for the thought, but I'm not double jointed. Why don't you extend the similar to Saint Tony being up George Bush's arse?
Proud of that as a Labour voter are you? When you voted Labour, did you do so in order to be led into a war under false pretences in support of neo-Fascists' world domination plans, or Cabinet ministers married to tax avoidance lawyers who make a living teaching the wealthy how to avoid the taxes the rest of you have to pay, not to mention helping far-right Italians with mafia connections to run offshore tax havens, or a government which gives lordships to people who'll give money to the labour party?
If youre so proud of labour, go look at how much pensions and average wages have risen during Labour's tenure.
Then go look at how much house prices have risen in the same time, how much personal debt has risen. Then go look how much top directors' salaries have risen in the same period.l
Then you might - just might - realise why Margaret Thatcher says that her greatest acheievement is New Labour.
Thomas
Monday Mar 13, 05:21
On a different tack completely, does anyone have any views on the number of written questions that are being asked about things closing/opening/starting/stopping/etc since 1997. It is difficult to see this as anything other than an attempt to find things to put in his leaflets and would seem to be a bit of an abuse of his position.
I've no doubt that all MPs do it, but I'd really rather he wrote a reply to my letter (yes - no reply since 13th January), or was supporting his constituents.
Perhaps I'm wrong - is he actually helping constituents by finding out how many buses have stopped running?
peter h
Monday Mar 13, 13:25
perhaps he doesnt reply to your letter becuase he knows that your only purpose in writing is to attack him. You're a labour party activist not a worried constituent. You know it. He knows it. Perhaps he has better things to do - like working for his constituents.
I assume he is sending so many written questions in order to demonstrate how his constituents are being let down in all sorts of ways.
And come off it, if you rely on buses then you'll want somebody to highlight their failure to run.
Ian
Monday Mar 13, 17:17
Peter
Of course it's legit for John to highlight flaws and failings. What he and his Lib Dem lackies always fail to do is provide credible means/policies of their own to address the issue.
Look at where Lib Dems have run local authorities and how the Council Tax soars and services, especially children's services, are cut to shreds.
And as for them having better things to do...like what? What do they actually *do* for chrissakes? Take a trip around the estates in Merseybank/Burnage etc and tell me if people there have experienced improvement/enhanced quality of life under a Lib Dem councillors/MP. Doesn't look like it to me.
They're always huge on perception and low on effort.
Ok..over to you for another nonsensical rant...
Dave
Monday Mar 13, 18:13
As someone who lives on the Merseybank estate, I can say that I have spoken to JL on many occassions as John in his role as councillor and a couple of times as an MP. In the whole time KB was MP I never saw him once. Yes John has failings, but at least he helps out locally.
peter h
Monday Mar 13, 23:56
well said dave. Labour just don't understand how John Leech does it!
And Ian , in case you ain't noticed mate, the quality of life on those estates is governed by those in power - ie LABOUR council and LABOUR government, NOT Lib Dems.
The one that wants whats best for Manchester
Tuesday Mar 14, 04:13
PETER H:
Firstly I am not your mate. I'm not ashamed to be proud of the Commonwealth games, it was a great event that made me proud to live in Manchester. In terms of regeneration, city centre flats are great because jobs are created building them and the people that live in them spend money in the city. Also, the council are working on a long term plan to regenerate housing across the city. In terms of the stadium as a city fan, I think its all good news. No I'm not proud of whats happening in places like Openshaw, Moss Side e.t.c; but things have improved so much in a relatively short space of time. Manufacturing base, there is hardly any manufacturing left, the country is changing. As for rose tinted spectacles crap, you're talking to the person who whilst they were a member of the labour party teamed up with the lib dems and the socialist campaign group to defeat their own Government over top up fees so get your facts straight. I said you were up your own arse because you had no right to make the comment you did about the general intelligence of people in Manchester as it was based on complete and utter prejudice. And as for 'Saint Tony', I'm not of that particular breed. Yeah I appreciate the good stuff hes done; but if I was to have any idols it would be more along the lines of John Smith/Neil Kinnock and all that. In terms of the war, do you really think that the labour party are imperialist? Get rid of this paranoia that we are backing up USA desires for world domination. Its crap. Theres a hell of a lot more democracy now than there ever was under Saadam. I know that pensions are a problem, but I never pretended everything would be perfect. But just remeber lib dems opposed the minimum wage and that is not me trying to be opportunistic. Thatchers greatest achievement was new labour because it was about telling the unions that this country would be governed by a national government and no longer allow the unions to hold the govnt to ransom.
So don't tell me about not seeing through labour, of course I do. I just cannot stand the thought of the current sitting lib dems running the council. I just hope that Gordon has more of a sense of fairness and social justice than Tony has showed thus far.
peter h
Tuesday Mar 14, 05:14
Well at least you bothered to take time to answer. Thank you for that, and I'd agree with a lot of your points.
Especially about not being mates.
I made no comment about the general level of intelligence in this city. I said the place is full of thickos who will always vote labour. Sorry if that upset you. It was a figure of speech. To be less abrasive, Manchester ,and many other northern cities, has large numbers of people who unthinkingly vote labour because they always have done, because they mistakenly still believe that the Labour party is "their" party.
Personally, I fail to understand how after 9 years of labour government we still have child poverty, or why pensioners are relatively poorer than they were because pensions are not linked to average pay, or why unions are still emasculated, or why house prices are now so high that ordinary working people struggle to pay for a roof over their head. Whatever happened to "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs"? As for the minimum wage - do me a favour. Why isn't it £10 an hour, to ensure people get a decent wage? It's a disgrace. My daughter - who works in a big store - gets given minimum wage. It guarantees she never has twopence to her name. It guarantees she and he boyfriend can't afford a house. It guarantees cheap labour in a pathetic economy based on service industry flogging cheap crap to the masses.
And yeah, I know there's hardly any manufacturing left. That was the point. And that's why our economy is a house of cards which will eventually tumble. If we don't produce to export, eventually we run out of money. Labour should have protected its manufacturing - wealth-producing - base. It hasnt.
As for Iraq, it isn't paranoia. Bush would not have dared go to war on his own. He could only do it because he had Britain on side to legitimize it. Of course Saddam was a monster. But that wasn't the reason for deposing him. If that were the case, we'd be going round Africa rooting out tinpot psychopathy dictators right left and centre. But there's no profit in that for USA. Iraq was picked on for purely strategic reasons - US domination in the Middle East and secure oil supplies.
If you don't believe me, look at the PNAC documents. Theyre there in black and white and theyre chilling reading.
USA certainly IS imperialist. The PNAC - project for new american century - is the blueprint drawn up by the current US administration before it was elected, spelling out in black and white its strategy to ensure that USA dominates the world economically and militarily and politically in the 21st century. If that isn't imperialism, then I don't know what is. And UK, thanks to Tony Blair is its number one supporter.
If you really do see through Labour as it currently is, you should be voting to get it out of office so it can rediscover what it's supposed to be.
AHR
Tuesday Mar 14, 14:21
£10 an hour and the economy would die
Val
Tuesday Mar 14, 15:14
http://vauxhall-libdems.org.uk/news/55.html
Lib Dem Council Tax freeze in London!
http://www.newcastle-libdems.org.uk/
Newcastle Lib Dems reduce Labour's council tax!
http://manchester-libdems.org.uk/
Manchester Lib Dems will do what Liverpool Lib Dems did - freeze Council Tax in their first year!
So we can all point to tit for tat examples of our favoured party doing well on Council Tax!
The point is that Council Tax is Labour's Poll Tax, it's unfair and hits pensioners on a fixed income very hard, as it's not related to ability to pay but to the value band of your house 15 years ago! That's hardly logical...
AHR
Tuesday Mar 14, 21:54
But will they, one always wanders whether fib dems actually cost any of their policies? . . . .
peter h
Tuesday Mar 14, 23:08
£10 an hour and the economy would thrive. Most low paid jobs are in service industries which are not exportable, and there would be more disposable income to be recycled back into the economy, more taxes, less state handouts.
Alan
Tuesday Mar 14, 23:27
Val, I could go on to the BNP website and get some example articles from that; it doesn't mean that they are either correct or in any way coherent!!
As for £10 p.h as a minimum wage Peter I'm all for it, infact I'm all for £20 p.h but where does the money come from?
peter h
Wednesday Mar 15, 01:44
Alan, if employers had to pay £10 an hour to get staff, they'd pay it. They'd find the money in various ways (a) increased efficiency (b)slightly smaller margins (c) evening out pay disparities elsewhere (d) higher sales if theyre a commercial entity. All sorts of ways. It's a myth that they can't afford £10 an hour just like it was a myth they couldn't afford £5 an hour.
peter h
Wednesday Mar 15, 01:45
Val has a fair point about council tax. It bears no relationship to a person's ability to pay. It's plain daft that a household with 4 working adults pays the same tax as a lone householder. It's like you paying 4 times the tax I do irrespective of how much you earn or what dependents you have. It's nuts.
We need some form of local income tax. (Which incidentally, would take me to the cleaners.............)
Alan
Wednesday Mar 15, 04:52
Although I agree with what you are saying would it not make more sense to increase the minimum wage gradually? Surely if the government hit companies with a £10p.h. minimum wage without any gradual progression it would hit them hard, the worry being too hard. I don't know, I'm just asking?
AHR
Wednesday Mar 15, 05:19
If the minimum wage was £10 an hour we would all be living in poverty. There wouldn't be enough jobs to go around. It would be back to the 80s when everyone was unemployed.
Thomas
Wednesday Mar 15, 14:05
Peter: Often a single person is entitled to a council tax discount, and a persons ability to pay does affect the amount they pay - there is a thing called Council Tax Benefit for low income households.
peter h
Wednesday Mar 15, 19:22
thomas, I'm not talking about low income people. I have a house with 4 people in it. I pay the same council tax as my neighbour who lives alone. Neither of us is poor and we pay full tax.
Except that in reality, he pays 4 times the tax I pay. He has to pay it himself. We have 4 people to share it. That is unfair on him and illogical
peter h
Wednesday Mar 15, 19:25
AHR you don't know what you are talking about. THe money is there in the econoomy to pay a decent minimum wage, and it beggars belief that any labour activists would try to argue against it.
Alan, yes of course it would be better to phase it in. But it IS affordable.
Alan
Wednesday Mar 15, 20:55
Surely though that is what Labour are doing, phasing it in gradually. The Tories didn't know the meaning of a minumum wage let alone implement a decent one. Since Labour came into power the minimum wage has been implemented and raised. I agree it should be higher though!
peter h
Thursday Mar 16, 00:14
It doesn't have to be THAT gradual. They've been in power 9 years for Gods sake
AHR
Thursday Mar 16, 01:27
I don't know what I'm talking about . . oh sorry I forgot, I'm a mancunian I must be thick. Despite the fact i've read about as much about this countrys economic as was possible during the campaign for the living wage.
Basically we cannot raise the minimum wage at the moment above the rate of inflation. The less employers pay people, the more people they can employ. Hard economic facts.
As a labour activist, which I am proud to be and whatever you may think I have labour values and definitely believe in greater equality. But - raising the minimum wage massively above the right of inflation wouldn't work.
Remember, who brought in the minimum wage in the face of massive opposition and who has raised it ever since.
peter h
Thursday Mar 16, 02:15
rubbish. you read about it , some of us live and do it.
Employers can't raise minimum wages above the rate of inflation? Complete bollocks. Try looking at how much employers pay themselves and their managements. Far higher than the rate of inflation.
There's plenty of money in this economy. A decent minimum wage simply helps redistribute it more equitably.
Employers employ the minimum number of people needed to do the job. THAT is hard economic fact. And they pay the minimum they can get away with to attract and keep the right staff. THAT is hard economic fact.
If those employers had to pay least £10 an hour for staff, they would pay at least £10 an hour. Some jobs would go, others would be created.
AQlomst all middle and senior management people have seen their wages go up by far more than inflation over the lat 10 years. So why not those who need it most, Mr Labour Party activist? Jesus, I'm a company director, been hiring and firing people for 30 years. Youre supposed to be a labour activist. Yet it's ME arguing for decent wages for the lowest paid. Welcome to the wonderful world of Tony Blair's version of Labour.
Alan
Thursday Mar 16, 02:19
If you've got any vacancies in your company Peter then let me know. Any employer that wants to up their employees wages without being put under pressure to do so is ok by me!
AHR
Thursday Mar 16, 05:37
Do you always feel the need to be so sanctimonious?
Tony Blair's labour was a means to an end. A means to get labour into power. A way that after 18 years of repressive Government normal people could finally be represnted. And of course it can't last. The party needs a leader with solid labour values; but no one ever said everything wud b perfect.
In terms of a living wage. Don't tell me that as a 'thick mancunian' I don't understand. Trust me I have done some truly shit jobs. I have worked for just over half of the current minimum wage and struggled with employers for basic trade union rights. Things that should be given and not a privilege.
Thats why I am grateful for the current system.
I also live in a country that was blighted by unemployment in the 80s. A city that still is. Of course I want the minimum wage to be raised as it has been consistently under this labour Government. But what I don't want is for the economy to go down the tube. And no I didn't read that and no I don't think that we should make unrealistic promises.
Yes to a living wage for all.
No to getting rid of the prosperous society that means that today life is a lot more comfortable than it has ever been.
Oh and yes I do have labour values, those same ones that have served this country well. But I would never advocate out and out socialism because it just doesn't work.
peter h
Thursday Mar 16, 06:06
Listen, you say this economy can't afford to increase the minimum wage above the rate of inflation.
You are in effect saying that the managing classes, the middle classes, MPs, Doctors, Company Directors,Lawyers, accountants, can all have THEIR salaries rise by more than the rate of inflation - as they have done in spades- but the poorest paid have to put up with the lowest increase. They can only have 3%.
And, in case you havent noticed, if you earn £5 an hour and your wages go up by 3% or whatever inflation is currently, your wages rise to £5.15 an hour - about £300 a year. If you earn the same as a decent manager - say £30 an hour - and your incomes goes up by inflation, you get an extra £2000.
Even if poor get a big percentage increase and the rich be inflation linked the rich are still better off.
But, no, the rich get far more than inflation-linked rises, and the gap between rich and poor gets bigger and bigger.
You don't knacker the prosperity of a country by distributing its wealth more fairly.
But when you have a government stacked with wives of tax avoidance lawyers , or privately educated barristers, or defence secretaries with offshore funds, party leaders who are willing to give peerage in exchange for donations to the party, then you don't have a party that gives a toss about the poor.
Ian
Thursday Mar 16, 19:01
Hold on Peter and Dave...your logic seems to be that if you live in an area wholly represented by Lib Dem Councillors and a Lib Dem MP...then they are not culpable for stagnation/lack of investment in that area?!?!?!?
barking...
peter h
Thursday Mar 16, 22:49
No. The logic is that the executive power is held by the government of the day and the majority party on the council. They have the power, therefore they have the responsibility . The best the opposition can do is to push those in power to do their job better. If they refuse - or fail - then they are culpable. If they succeed, they deserve the plaudits.
AHR
Saturday Mar 18, 17:57
So, you agree the fact that Manchester is a better place to live now, is all down to our labour led council?!
peter h
Sunday Mar 19, 05:50
THe good bits they can claim credit for.
They can also claim credit for the fact that my disabled neighbour can't walk down our street because the pavement is so badly maintained; that dustbins are left all week on the pavement despite repeated complaints to the council and she has difficulty negotiating them; that beswick, miles platting, etc etc are an utter disgrace; that all of our secondary schools are below national average, that there are no provisions worthy of the name for cyclists in this town despite our having the highest student population in europe, that we have one of the lowest life expectancies in western europe, and so on.
Alan
Sunday Mar 19, 17:44
Peter, you are absolutely right, lets vote Labour out and the Lib Dems in. John Leech and his council cronies would be able to deal effectively with all of these problems and more. The Lib Dems have magical powers you see... just look at their manifesto.. not even the genie in the bottle could make any of that come true!!
peter h
Sunday Mar 19, 19:19
alan, with respect, I think that for a supporter of the current labour government and council to use the word "cronies" is a bit rich, especially given the recent revelations about cash for peerages and the dubious ftiendships which your leaders espouse - tax-avoidance lawyer husbands, far-right american politicians, corrupt italian politcicians, extremely dubious fundraisers and so forth. Perhaps John Leech and friends will be as bad if they ever get in power. But until they do so, I suggest you remember the old saying about people in glass houses not throwing stones.
Labour needs time out to rediscover itself and rid itself of the parasites attaching themselves to it
peter h
Sunday Mar 19, 21:16
and no doubt alan and ahr read with some warmth the articles today in Sunday Times about how tony blair befriended his multimillionaire mate Lord (naturally - he raised £15 million for labour) Levy - who apparently paid £5000 a year income tax in 2001 (funny that!) and wined and dined and wooed the rich. Warms the cockles of a socialist heart, don't it?
Don't you guys DARE to suggest dishonesty from Lib Dems when that is happening.
Alan
Sunday Mar 19, 23:32
On a completely non political note.. does anyone wear contact lenses.. if so how the bloody hell are you supposed to get them in..!!! One hour of my life already wasted!!!!!!!
peter h
Monday Mar 20, 02:05
try bostik
AHR
Monday Mar 20, 08:26
No I don't read the Sunday times because it is right ring wing crap.
I totally agree with what Alan says. Whatever you may think about labour nationally, Manchester city council led by labour is the way forward, the only way forward.
AHR
Monday Mar 20, 08:27
Delete 'ring' from the previous post
peter h
Monday Mar 20, 13:13
if you don't read the right wing crap then you don't know what your opponents are thinking, but of course you don't seem to think that your opponents do think.
and there is no such thing as the "only" way forward. unless you have tunnel vision.DEmocracy requires a choice of ways, all workable, for people to choose from.
Alan
Monday Mar 20, 16:35
http://www.wired-gov.net/EDP8203R7W/WGLaunch.aspx?ARTCL=37942&ALERT_TYPE=15
See above article Peter!
Alan
Tuesday Mar 21, 00:46
With regards to newspapers I've started to read the Sun! I used to be a Guardian& Telegraph reader because they used to be good papers. I'd sooner read Dear Deidre than the crap they publish in the broadsheets nowadays!!
Dave
Tuesday Mar 21, 01:06
I see John raised my issue over nappies in parliment. Good on him. I had just about given up! However, not that impressed with the way he questioned it, nor with the reply he got.
peter h
Tuesday Mar 21, 01:22
Alan, that puts minimum wage up to £214 per week (40 hours).
The average wage in this country is £471 per week.
A minimum wage will be less than the norm, but that is less than half the average wage.
Employers can well afford to pay more.
There are a lot of powerless people out there whose livelihoods are defined by the minimum wage, and they depend on labour to ensure they get a decent wage. £214 is NOT a decent wage - and the state will have to subsidize it with various benefits, so you and me end up subsidizing cheapskate employers. It's wrong.
Tell me, how do you actually "read" the Sun?
I was talking to an ex-Telegraph employee last week, who left 5 years ago. He went back to see them a few weeks ago and 90% of the staff have changed and theyre deeply demoralised, so you have a point about the Telegraph.
But the Guardian? It's the only game in town for an intelligent read. Of course, it puts the boot into your lot on a daily basis and they do it in a way you can't argue with because they're usually correct.
And they regularly print letters from me (Or did till my wife threatened to leave me if they printed any more because of all the nutters who rang us after they appeared). So I can understand you not liking it. But don't call it crap, because it isnt. It's the best paper - and its origins are in radical manchester. So AHR will be proud of it.
peter h
Tuesday Mar 21, 01:25
do the labour lads have a price list to hand for honours? I quite fancy getting a little one - maybe a baronetcy, or even just a KBE - for my lad for his birthday. I assume Labour must print a price list, but I can't find one. I've got couple of hundred quid spare. What will that get me?
AHR
Tuesday Mar 21, 05:52
Yes I do like the Guardian actually, that and the indie.
peter h
Tuesday Mar 21, 17:36
careful. we might agree on something..........
Alan
Tuesday Mar 21, 17:52
http://www.nobility.co.uk/index.html
Peter, FYI, you'll need more than a couple of hundred though!!
Alan
Tuesday Mar 21, 18:00
In relation to 'The Sun', you can't beat it. If ever you think you've got problems just read the problem pages; it's like Easteneders, it makes you realise that things ain't that bad. The good old mystic meg tells you you're going to find your perfect woman AND win the lottery!! 'The Sun' filling people with false hope on a daily basis!! Still it's a good mindless read for the lunch hour!
peter h
Wednesday Mar 22, 01:00
if you want to be filled with false hope just read the labour party manifesto with tantric tony and gordon the guru, loan your lottery winnings to honest jack dromy and become lord alan of copson street. The perfect woman might stretch their resources a bit though. Not too many page threes on the labour benches
John Holliker
Friday Mar 24, 20:40
Peter
Yes, you deserve an MBE....most boring egotist...
peter h
Saturday Mar 25, 02:46
thank you john, but I would not be so rude as to deprive you of that title.
I'll be second most boring egotist.
AHR
Saturday Mar 25, 22:02
This has gone from holding JL accountable to a constructive policy debate to a general slanging match. What is JL up to. Has he done anything for the people of Withingtom.
peter h
Sunday Mar 26, 02:45
actually it started with attacks on JL's stance on Christies Hospital. Given the apparent growing crisis in NHS, maybe he was being prescient
AHR
Sunday Mar 26, 03:35
I think we've discussed that one enough !
peter h
Sunday Mar 26, 06:38
you mean the NHS is now an embarrassment to labour?
AHR
Sunday Mar 26, 18:49
No the topic on Christies hospital has been discussed enough.
peter h
Sunday Mar 26, 21:53
christies is just one part of the NHS. Remember? Closures? Seen the papers recently?
AHR
Monday Mar 27, 02:32
No you're not listening Christies has been discussed enough.
If u want to discuss the NHS tho look at how quickly the hospitals on upper brrok street have gone up using PFIs
peter h
Monday Mar 27, 04:55
oh I'm listening alright, although maybe not to you. And reading. And all the media is full of is NHS crisis , closures, mismanagement, despite pumping in huge amounts of money. So how do you explain that?
Dave
Monday Mar 27, 17:46
I work for the NHS, (albeit, in Stockport, but live in Chorlton). The NHS is in such a mess, as it has had no real significant investment via tax or anything else since it was first set up. The population is growing and getting older, diagnosis and treatments have got better, pharmaceutical companies are being greeder, people are wanting whiter teeth, staff leaving, etc etc, all putting an increasing burden on the NHS. It needs more than just an extra one pence in the pound on income tax. If people want a "free" health service, they are going to have to pay up more. Even the USA puts more money into "free" health care per head of population than we do, and that's saying something!
peter h
Tuesday Mar 28, 05:19
so what do you make of all the stories in the press at the moment about overspending, redundancies, poor government handling, too many managers, insidious privatision and so forth? Is it true?
Youre right about having to pay if we want first class services and it's daft to think people wouldnt pay - after all millions of them are willing to pay fortunes to BUPA for exactly that.
!
Tuesday Mar 28, 14:30
Part privatisation is probably aiding the efficiency not the other way around
Dave
Tuesday Mar 28, 15:22
I have worked for both the NHS (Lancaster, Manchester, Stockport), Local Councils (Manchester, Lancashire, East Sussex) and private firms who have won tenders to do "public sector" work. I think the problem with private firms is that they are out to make a profit, and therefore tend to pay low wages to front line workers, hence a high turn over of staff and/or less experienced/under qualified staff etc. I do think we have too many layers of management too.
I read an interesting article about mortgages in the Times a year or two back, and it was stating that if Teachers' salaries had gone up in line with mortgages since 1900, then the starting salary would be around £63,000 nowadays, like wise for many other public sector workers such as social workers and nurses. Shame it isn't even a third of that. Just goes to show how much the public value health, education and social care!
As for "!" I would say PFI, (privatisation, or whatever else you want to call it)is making it less efficient, but I am just talking from personal experience!
AHR
Tuesday Mar 28, 17:48
On a similar yet different note! What does everyone think of todays strike?
peter h
Tuesday Mar 28, 23:49
! doesnt know what he's talking about. Like you say, when you introduce private sectors, the motivation changes. You can see it in a lot of Ministerial talk at the minute. It's almost as if they think book balancing matters more than saving lives. The key should be to have public sectors which work efficiently. I refuse to believe that is impossible.
peter h
Tuesday Mar 28, 23:50
good for the strikers. Hopefully they'll achieve something. It's about time they fought back
Alan
Wednesday Mar 29, 00:03
Fought back over what the fact that they've got to work 5 years more like the rest of us before they get their pension. Boo bloddy hoo!!! Typical unions causing trouble again! They want to get back to bloody work and stop messing about!!
UNISON
Wednesday Mar 29, 01:00
Not necessarily because public sector workers went into their jobs being told that they could retire at 60. In return for that they have accepted several other sacrifices.
The fact that the Govnt caved in and allowed teachers, police e.t.c to keep their pensions means that they should do the same for all local Govnt workers.
Also until this is resolved there will be more and more strikes. Unless it is resolved with the utmost urgency then it will hit labour hard at the local elections.
peter h
Wednesday Mar 29, 04:45
alan, if you buy a car for £5000 and it falls to bits 2 days later, you'll expect it to be put right. Because youve entered into a contract with the supplier, and you'll expect him to honour it.
If somebody gets a job in the public services and part of the offer is retirement at 60, then he will expect his employer - us - to honour the contract in the same way. Boo hoo doesnt come into it. We have a contract with them. We should honour it. Would you like your military mates to be suddenly told we were scrapping their pensions? Same principle.
UNISON
Wednesday Mar 29, 05:55
Couldn't agree more, even our union leader who has previously been loyal to new labour knows that strike action is the only way to go.
This agreement must be honoured.
Trade unionists make up a massive part of the labour party, labour vote and labour finance so it is in THEIR BEST INTERESTS as well as ours to resolve this conflict quickly.
Alan
Wednesday Mar 29, 16:40
I bought a car for 12,000 and it fell to bits but they won't fix it under warranty!! Thats life!!
peter h
Wednesday Mar 29, 17:41
no alan, that's you being ripped off by an unscrupulous vendor. Are you saying the state should be unscrupulous employer?
peter h
Wednesday Mar 29, 18:13
by the way alan, can we quote you as a labour activist that labour pensions policy makers are as reliable as second hand car dealers?
AHR
Wednesday Mar 29, 20:23
Thats life - well maybe some people aren't perepared to accept thats the way life has to be.
I certainly wouldn't
Alan
Wednesday Mar 29, 23:19
I have to work until 65 so should they. Why are they any different to me. We are now living longer so we should work longer! It makes sense!
UNISON
Thursday Mar 30, 01:35
True but have you accepted lower pay on the premise that u wud b able to retire at 60?
peter h
Thursday Mar 30, 02:22
according to you alan, no contract or agreement is worth the paper its written on. That's your logic. those people have a contract and their employers are trying to break it. it's wrong, plain and simple.
AHR
Thursday Mar 30, 04:15
Indeed, people are living longer; but if labour really is the party of the 'workers' as well as a party that embraces capitalism its time they proved it.
peter h
Thursday Mar 30, 05:12
this is ridiculous. I'm agreeing with AHR......too many labour leaders are bedazzled by wealth and power. Like the pigs in animal farm....all people are equal but some are more equal than others. George Orwell's real name was Eric Blair. Maybe changing his name was another example of his farsightedness....
AHR
Thursday Mar 30, 08:07
Like lets not agree too much. I'm still proud to be a member of a party that has done many good things. I'm glad we embrace capitalism as in economic terms we couldn't have it any other way.
BUT . . . We must now show that we also really want Britain to be a better place for everyone that lives in it. And that means treating public sector workers with the respect that they deserve.
Alan
Friday Mar 31, 01:04
Ok, perhaps I'm being a bit blunt. Why should public sector workers be treated with any more respect than private sector workers. The majority all work so that they can pay the mortgage/rent, provide for themselves and their families etc. Be it public or private sector makes no difference to me. The public sector is always complaining that they are over stretched and their budget too low, always telling us how stressful their jobs are etc. Welcome to the private sector x10!! Ther eis still the stress, still the work load and we have to work until we are 65... so should they!!
I guarantee you that my work load, my responsibilities and my stres levels are higher than any Town Hall Administrator! Why should I be treated any differently to them. Once again, apologies for my bluntness but it's something that I personally feel very strongly about.
peter h
Friday Mar 31, 02:06
you're a daft bugger alan. If public service personnel get a better deal on pensions than you, then you should be trying to get a better deal for yourself, not trying to drag them down to your level.
Truth is, they almost certainly earn less over their working lifetime, but in return get more security and earlier retirement as payoff for that.
As I'm sure you know, otherwise you'd be in the public services yourself.
Alan
Friday Mar 31, 21:35
And you're such a charmer Peter who lives in a very unrealistic world!
peter h
Saturday Apr 01, 00:03
Actually, I'll be 60 in 9 months, and we're just registering 2 new companies and negotiating to set up a distribution for UK products in China.
Personally, I'll retire feet first,So quit whinging about retirement ages and make your own luck.
Tell me, by the way. You have lots of military friends. Do you think THEY should retire at 65?
2 Para with armalites and zimmer frames perhaps? 1st armoured wheelchair brigade? Special Alzheimer Service? Royal Arthritery? the Berlin Stairlift?
You can just picture them storming through Basra waving their walking sticks in the air, telling the insurgents to get a haircut and mind their manners.
Might just work.........
Alan
Saturday Apr 01, 00:16
Very witty Peter, but ther eis a big difference between a member of 2 Para and a Town Hall pen pusher to say otherwise is stupid!
peter h
Saturday Apr 01, 05:55
yes. One can write.
AHR
Saturday Apr 01, 17:32
The point is they entered into a contract to retire at 60 under the 85 year rule. The Govnt has a duty to honour that rule
AHR
Saturday Apr 01, 17:32
The point is they entered into a contract to retire at 60 under the 85 year rule. The Govnt has a duty to honour that rule
Alan
Saturday Apr 01, 17:56
Yeah, and the other one puts his life on the line to protect self opinionated arm chair pundits like yourself Peter and don't start banging on about the Gulf War again; if it wasn't for people in Airborne, Marines etc then it's more than likely the whole of Europe would be eating bratwurst and shouting Heil Hitler!
Furthermore, as you point out it would be ridiculous for the Armed Forces to serve until they are 65, it is physically impossible, town hall pen pushers on the other hand have no reason why they can't work until 65. Trust me, if you yomp with 75kg on your back, if not more, for most of your career you knees are most likely to be battered by the age of 40. What's the issue with the pen pusher..... writers cramp!!!!
peter h
Saturday Apr 01, 22:17
nice to see how much a labour party activist despises public servants, alan. I think the pen pusher in the town hall deserves just as much respect as some bloke in army uniform. They both serve the community, and they both deserve respect. And, as AHR says, they both deserve to have their contracts of employment honoured by their employers.
you seem to think that just because a man dons a uniform and chooses to be a soldier he somehow deserves more respect than a civil servant , or somebody like me who runs a business, or whatever. Complete bollocks. They all serve in their way. If it wasnt for the bloke in the town hall, Manchester wouldnt function, and if it wasnt for people like me there'd be no money to pay their wages. We're all part of a social jigsaw and deserve the same respect.
As for the 2nd world war, it was won by the entire country with abot of help from america. My dad, a town hall pen pusher, by the way, became a front line soldier for 6 years, as did, no doubt , your dad or grandad, and AHR's and everybody else. then he went back to pushing his pen.
j
Sunday Apr 02, 02:50
Has nobody here wished John Leech a very happy birthday yet?
Dave
Sunday Apr 02, 14:58
So all local authority workers are just "pen pushers"? Why is that? Is it to do with years of national government (both Labour and Tory) creating more and more redtape etc.
Also, nice to see you think classroom assistants, some teaching staff, social workers, community workers, youth justice workers, binman, park keepers, probation workers, welfare rights advisers, consumer rights workers, planning officers, enviromental health workers, coroners officers, council tax collectors, allotment supervisors, etc etc, as nothing more than "pen pushers"! Why don't you get rid of your rubbish, teach the kids, stop abusers, clean the streets, trim park hedges, put up with food posioning from your local cafe, stop going to the pub as they have no licence, buy a off road jeep when the roads fall apart, etc etc.
Alan
Sunday Apr 02, 17:34
AHR you talk of these people as heroes!!! Let me talk to you about where my parents live. They pay the highest rate of council tax that you can pay, they are not on main sewage, they do not have a gas supply, the country road/ lane at the bottom of the drive is in pieces and dangerous, the hedgerows are that overgrown you can't see round corners making them blind. The Police never bother to go down there even though people feel it necessary to bomb down the lane at 70mph, crime is rife because most of the scallys are aware that most the occupants down the lane are defenceless old widows!!! They have wheelie bins but the bin men refuse to empty it unless everything is in a black bin bag. This is the service the local council offers to some of it's highest paying homeowners! As for Manchester I'll put a Jeep on order because my car is getting destroyed by all the pot holes and bumps!
AHR
Sunday Apr 02, 19:22
Ok the council needs to do better; but it doesn't alter the fact that the Govnt has gone back on a contract which it cannot do. If it was up to me to attract more people into the public sector and stop pay rising above the rate of inflation, I'd keep the 85 year rule 4 all workers.
Alan
Sunday Apr 02, 19:33
My Mum is a Deputy Head and her retirement age is still 60; although this is subject to possible governmental change, it hasn't changed yet and may not. Is this the case with all public sector workers or just Deputy Heads? In which case, why are people striking if nothing has changed. Please excuse my 'current affairs' ignorance I have been living at the office recently!
AHR
Sunday Apr 02, 22:55
Teachers should be keeping the 85 year rule.
peter h
Monday Apr 03, 00:10
alan - I don't get it. Why are you so against retirement at 60?
Is it just because you havent got the chance to do it? There is no coherence to your argument at all. It sounds like petty jealousy.
I'm old enough to remember computers first coming in. The assumption then was that, by now, we'd all be working 30 hour weeks, having long holidays and retiring at 50.
But the opposite has happened. Job security is gone, people under 40 are getting deeper and deeper in debt, losing security, facing working till theyre 70, being priced out of housing, retirement ages and we have the longest working week in Europe.
It's a mess. And nobody seems to notice, and you are arguing for longer working lives, which by definition means less leisure time, less quality time. Crazy.
AHR
Monday Apr 03, 01:09
We don't want to sign up to the 35 hour week but when we are one of the richest countries in Europe but also one of the most stressed it just doesn't add up.
Alan
Monday Apr 03, 03:25
We are one of the richest countries in Europe because we are not signed up to the 35 hour week and we are stressed... be that right or wrong.
In answer to your comments Peter, I think that it would be great if we could all retire at 50/60 but the fact is that people are living alot longer than they used to. My great nan died at the age of 94, when she was my age the average expected life span of an individual was no where near that. I am saying that we have to accept some responsibility for changing trends instead of just taking the easy option and blaming the government. I have no problem with working until I'm 65, even 70 so it's not jealousy. I have a great dislike of unions and think that as opposed to helping the workforce they are more interested in making the headlines and causing trouble for the government.
Alan
Monday Apr 03, 03:27
p.s as for your comments in relation to 'quality time' I have plenty of that now... I makesure that I do. If I am not working at the weekend I makesure that I spend my time productively and make the most of it. Perhaps people should spend less time moaning about the fact that they haven't got quality time, start switching on and use the time that they do have productively.
peter h
Monday Apr 03, 03:39
wow. labour activist with great dislike of unions.
.
So who sticks up for the workers in your world Mr Labour supporter?
AHR
Monday Apr 03, 05:56
The labour party was built on the trade union movement so how you can have a great dislike for unions is interesting. Just remember the disgraceful way that the gate gourmet workers were treated.
Have a look at the following EDM tabled by Tony Lloyd MP.
That this House recognises that free and independent trade unions are a force for good in our society and around the world, and are vital to our democracy; welcomes the positive role modern unions play in providing protection for working people and winning fairness at work; notes the 1906 Trades Disputes Act granted unions the legal freedom to take industrial action; regrets that successive anti-union legislation has meant that trade union rights are now weaker than those introduced by the Trades Disputes Act; notes the overwhelming support at both the TUC and Labour Party Conference for the Gate Gourmet Workers and for improvements in union rights, including measures to simplify ballot procedures and to allow limited supportive action, following a ballot, in specific circumstances; further notes that these conferences called for legislation which conformed to ILO Conventions ratified by the UK and therefore welcomes the decision of the 2005 TUC Congress to campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill to mark the 100 year anniversary of the 1906 Trades Disputes Act.
Incidentally JL has signed this!
Alan
Monday Apr 03, 16:53
I don't like Tony Lloyd either!
AHR
Monday Apr 03, 17:31
How can you not like Tony Lloyd. He is a legend! He is in one of the safest labour seats in the country. Nice guy and solid labour with it. What more could anyone want?
peter h
Monday Apr 03, 19:14
alan, tell me. You ARE a labour supporter aren't you?
We are entering a world of multinationals. We NEED strong unions to safeguard workers' rights. Like AHR says, look at Gate Gourmet. Also, look at what's beginning to happen at ASDA now that Walmart has taken over.
This isnt tinpot dictators protecting pampered workers. This is people on (almost) minimum wages powerless in the face of multinational conglomerates needing some way of defending themselves.
AHR
Monday Apr 03, 22:17
This is absolute role reversal. Jesus, I thought I was pretty damn supportive of new labour and I still am but the labour party has an industrial wing, always has had, always will have. For precisely the reasons peter has mentioned.
We have multinationals, globalisation is upon us and thats no bad thing; but with that comes a need for protection and thats where the unions come in.
And as a labour supporter you should be pleased about the amount of mony they give us.
Alan
Monday Apr 03, 22:49
Actually Peter, until Tony Blair came to power and transformed the 'old' Labour party into New Labour and moved away from the extreme left wing socialism of the past to a modern day party capable of dealing with modern day needs; I was actually a Tory supporter (not something I'm really proud of now). If you ask me however, which way I lean from the centre then it's too the right. The Labour Party should not be held to ransom by the unions, the fact that it was is one of the reasons why Maggie and John stayed in power for so long. Tony Blair brought a fresh perspective to the Labour Party and to politics which I fully support.
With regards to the amount of money the Unions give 'us', what's that got to do with anything? It's just another way that they have held Labour to ransom in the past!
peter h
Monday Apr 03, 23:28
you still are a tory supporter alan. You just don't realise it.
It's weird. I'm the company director, with a nice house and a few bob. I should be the tory here.
But the reason I got anywhere and not stuck in the mining village where my family was for the last 250 years was because previous labour people fought for the rights of ordinary people like me to get a good education - FREE (as an investment , not a gift), good housing, free health care, against tories who just treated us like cannon fodder. None of that was given willingly. Working people had to fight for it. And the reason that labour party was able to exist was because of the unions. OK so they lost the plot for a while in the 70s. But that was then, this is now.
The unions are not some sinister monster. They are groups of working people joining together for working peoples' rights in the workplace for chrissake. And they are the heart and soul of the labour party.
AHR
Tuesday Apr 04, 00:11
They give us money which is good.
peter h
Tuesday Apr 04, 07:16
so did bernie ecclestone. money needs taking out of the equation
AHR
Tuesday Apr 04, 11:34
No I'm jst saying as a labour party member taking away the whole standing up for the workers function they do things like
a) Funds us
b) Activities like hwlping to combat the BNP
c) Help with canvassing
d) Much good stuff internationally like training Iraqi trade unionists
peter h
Tuesday Apr 04, 20:12
agreed, but as you saw from alan, and David Cameron last week, your opponents can accuse Labour of being beholden to the unions because you receive £12 million per year from them and they get £3 million back in benefts of some kind. This is precisely the line taken by Tories last week trying to fend off criticism of their secret overseas loans. Nobody pays money - at least big slices of money - to any political party for purely philanthropic reasons. They do it to buy influence. It needs to be removed on all sides. Just like if we had an elected lords, nobody could be accused of buying lordships
Dominic H
Tuesday Apr 04, 20:23
Unless as a Tory spokesman said on interview last week when asked whether people made loans to them for personal gain 'no'.
Hard to see that really, especially as the party has had to pay back these loans.
AHR
Tuesday Apr 04, 22:23
Party funding does need 2 b made more transparent; but the labour party has an industrial wing so we r not jst going 2 turn round and say sod the unions!
peter h
Tuesday Apr 04, 23:00
fair enough, but you can't really claim that tories are being influenced by big donors if you yourselves are being funded by big donors, whoever they may be.
And also, unions are made of millions of people, with all sorts of political preferences, yet the money goes 100% to labour.
It would be more ethical if union members , when paying their dues, specified the party to receive their levy , and the union apportioned the money accordingly.
It would also give the unions more clout with all parties.
peter h
Tuesday Apr 04, 23:04
one final point, if parties had less financial income thwey might spend less time on dubious advertizing campaigns (ALL parties) and more time at grass roots engaging with the public. I think they tend to rely too much on advertizing campaigns and not enough on knocking on doors and talking. It's a way of losing touch
AHR
Wednesday Apr 05, 12:48
But the tories would screw over the unions and lib dems are just as thatcherite as anyon else, e.g post office, so why would unions want 2 give money 2 parties with no industrial link???????
peter h
Wednesday Apr 05, 17:57
if the unions are democratic then they should distribute the levies in line with their members' wishes.
And the tories would not be so anti-union then because they would not routinely class unions as being labour.
Think about it. If you're a tory minister, and your job is to look after issues concerning employment. You will routinely assume the unions as being your opponents because they are allied to your political opponents, and you'll feel more comfortable with the bosses.
If however the unions are politically neutral, they will regard you as being a valid representative of the workers, and they will want to impress you because your members represent a lot of votes in elections, and they also receive large contributions from you. If 25% of Union fees went to tories, that would be £3 million. Tories would discover a new-found enthusiasm for unions and may even encourage them.
And it would free up unions to represent their workers more effectively, for instance, without worrying about rocking the boat for labour administrations. It removes a conflict of interest. I trhink it would make unions stronger and improve politics in this country.
AHR
Wednesday Apr 05, 23:44
No thats just your opinion.
Labour has an industrial wing, thats the unions. We r the party of the workers, thats how its works.
Tories not anti union - do me a favour - remember the 80s anyone??
Alan
Thursday Apr 06, 18:09
I think that what Peter was trying to suggest was that if the unions were not affiliated in a political sense purely to Labour then the Tories may look upon them differently. The problem is AHR we are not in the 60's anymore; you are not just the party of the workers anymore. There has been a massive increase in middle class voters (I hate to determine people in a class but for ease I have) who vote for Labour (or did anyway) and Labour/ Unions need to move with the times. Labour has but the unions are still the same.
The problem is with Labour is that there is a big difference between the way you think Labour should be and the way that I think Labour should be.
You are sticking to the old stereotypes where Labour was the party of the coalminers and Tories were the party of public school toffs. Thats not how it is anymore, more and more people are voting Labour and additionally more and more young people are starting to vote Tory (God help us).
I can't help but think that you are living in the past when I believe that it is very important to look at the present and the future!
peter h
Thursday Apr 06, 19:18
yes I do remember the 80s, and the 70s and the 60s and the ptched battles.
Tories were anti-union because Unions = Labour = Tories' political opponents.
Therefore tories would not do anything to help unions.
If unions = x million workers = x million votes up for grabs for whichever party offers the best deal, then tories MUST listen to unions, and unions hold more power.
Equally, if Labour has to actually woo the unions for their votes rather than just taking them for granted, then unions hold more power over labour.
And equally, Labour cannot be accused of being held to ransom by unions.
It's a separation of functions to make things work better all round.
Personally I think that not only should every employee have a right to be in a union, he/should be actively encouraged to be in a union to protect his rights and to give all types of job a coherent voice.
I suspect that if the unions had not been affiliated to labour in 70s, then Thatcher would not have dared to act as she did.
And if the unions had not been politicised, they would not have been hijacked by the like of Red Robbo, Derek Hatton, and their likes who were basically using workforces for their own radical-left agendas(I remember seeing Derek Hatton , by the way, at the height of his powers - driving around in a Jag XJS coupe with DEG5Y number plate. Make whjat you will of that).
When Alan pours such venom on unions, it is because of his memory of those days.
AHR
Thursday Apr 06, 20:35
We obviously have a disagreement. Thats fine. Labour isn't what it was in those days tho. We've changed, the countries changed and the unions have changed. And thats why I think the current arrangement is adequate.
Alan
Thursday Apr 06, 22:24
The Unions haven't changed and that's my point, change is good, moving with the times is good and the unions haven't done that. To me the unions are like big business, they nurture you and take care of you, offer you development and support while it suits their business needs, as soon as you are surplus to requirements you go and they don't care as long as they are ok and the profit has been made. (I'm not talking about my current employer there who ,incidentally, is one of the few good 'big' companies out there)
As for 'memory of those days' I'm not that old Peter!!!
AHR
Thursday Apr 06, 22:54
Unions have changed.
Do u see lots of militancy? Do u see violence? No holding govnt 2 ransom, just fighting for the rights of members.
The reason they r affiliated to labour is it suits them and us.
peter h
Thursday Apr 06, 23:08
unions have certainly changed, but I think they would be better off in 2006 being independent of any party, and labour would be better off independent of unions - or any other single interest group.
I remember very well the Thatcher era, where unions were regarded as the enemy by the government and thatcher could do that because she could claim they were politically motivated. It was a disaster for the unions, and they are suffering to this day. So I can't agree that it suits unions to be tied into political parties.
AHR
Friday Apr 07, 13:03
It suits the unions actually more than it suits the party. They are better off with a labour government in power. Simple as!
peter h
Friday Apr 07, 18:39
that was the case , but life has moved on. In 21st century, they need political independence and the clout that it gives them.
I suspect that they will realise that as younger generations of leaders come along.
peter h
Friday Apr 07, 18:40
talking of the labour party, I see you've lost more than half your members since Tony Blair became PM. Now what does that tell you?
AHR
Friday Apr 07, 20:40
We r obviously not going 2 agree on this.
The fact we have lost half our members tells me we have been in Govnt 9 years and we are tired. We don't have the same sparkle about us that we had in 1997.
Labour is the natural party of opposition because when we r there we can pursue socialist policies and no tough decisions have 2 b taken.
peter h
Friday Apr 07, 23:01
surely various big single issues - notably Iraq - w have been the catalysts making members resign. And it can't be much fun at grass roots under tony blair and his inner circle's lofty presidential manner.
somewhere out there somebody will find the way to run a modern state successfully without jettisoning socialist ideals. God help us if the world is doomed to follow the american pattern. Marx once said that capitalists will sell you the rope you hang them with. Hope so.
AHR
Saturday Apr 08, 13:57
I'm not sure 100% socialism is the answer.
Striving for equality & pluralism wud b a good start tho.
peter h
Saturday Apr 08, 20:58
fair point, but you aint going to get that with the elitist crap which infects downing street at this moment
peter h
Tuesday Apr 11, 22:42
keith bradley gets voted out of parliament by his constituents.Labour completely ignores the electorate, calls him a lord and puts him straight back in any way irrespective of what the voters think. Safe and sound where he doesn't have to face such a minor inconvenience as a public vote. Ain't democracy wonderful....pity we havent got one here.
Dave
Wednesday Apr 12, 09:24
Peter, you are wrong, we do have a democracy. I know, because B Tory B Liar, and Dubya, keep harping on about letting Iraq have our model of democracy!
peter h
Wednesday Apr 12, 16:20
that's something else they'll hate us for in years to come then
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
