Johnny Bognor

The Unions struck a deal with management two years ago. Now the RM made a small profit in its last fiscal year, the CWU want a slice of the cake. The problem arises where competition in the postal market is hotting up and only a small number of customers switching to other providers would soon return the RM to losses. The CWU are accelerating this problem where customers are switching in their droves, thus increasing the likelihood of even more job losses over and above any planned cuts. I really blame the union here and not the posties. They have been misled and they are going to pay for it.

Don't get me started on the postal strike. The ultimate effect of this action or even the threatened action is that customers are deserting the Royal Mail in droves. Amazon are shifting work to other carriers and House of Fraser have switched to DHL. John Lewis, Argos, M&S are all condsidering switching this week. The danger for the RM is that if they switch, they may not come back. The RM have to modernise or they are dead and buried. If the CWU go on strike, they are the ones banging the nails in the coffin.

Listening to you two, it sounds as if Gordon gets off scott free. Capitalism is not perfect....never has been. However, at the end of the day there is no better alternative. It creates more wealth than any other system and therefore makes more available for distribution. As for picking up the peices, had Clown not blown his economic legacy, he could have bailed out the banks with the money he kept for a rainy day.....but instead he has had to borrow the money to bail them out which makes matters even worse. Brown is/was part of the problem and is guilty as the bankers as far as I am concerned. He was happy to let the debt fuelled boom continue as long as there was a feel good factor that kept the electorate happy. If anything, Labour bought the last election through turning a blind eye and allowing the **** to hit the fan. Yes it has affected everybody, but the UK is feeling it the most. Thanks Gordon, you moron.

That'll be a shock to the system.

Look into my eyes, look into my eyes, the eyes, the eyes, not around the eyes, don't look around my eyes, look into my eyes, you're under http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8303126.stm

Public flogging? The stocks? Public Shaming?

Instead of "bob-a-job", you could call it "slob-a-job". Mind you, it would put the Scouts out of business. On a serious note, there is loads of community service type work that could be done. This would improve the environment for all and would be seen as a contribution to society.

100m people died under communism compared to 25m under fascism. Not defending fascism here, just highlighting the hypocricy of many a socialist where they seem to be warmer towards their own extreme which has resulted in more human suffering than any other type of regime. Maybe I just don't get this socialism malarky.

But far left scum are OK by you?

Wasn't Hitler a National Socialist? BNP do not have one single economic policy that is remotely capitalist. Their entire economic policy would not look too far amiss from your average socialist. Their key themes are: 1. Anti-globalisation 2. Banning/Restricting foreign Imports 3. Anti-Outsourcing 4. Controlling the economy for the nation 5. Would nationalise all utilities This looks like traditional socialist fayre to me.

Are you suggesting the BNP are Capitalist? They will close down free trade, are anti-globalisation and would nationalise everything. Their basic principles are based on collectivism and so they have more in common with socialism. I think the BNP are mis-labled - they are National Socialists. This is why Labour are worried, because the BNP will attract more of their own core support. Capitalists, by definition, could never support the BNP.

Considering Labours complete failure on the immigration front, Brown & Co have done far more to promote facist views than Cameron could. Nick Griffin's appearing on question time the week after next FFS

No I would say that isn't fair. If you call the Labour party communist, then perhaps it would then be a level playing field.

I don't think it matters whether Labour will get their vote out, even if the die hards stand by their party. The Middle Classes who went red in the nineties have gone blue and this is what ultimately decides the election.

I think the problem for socialists is that the argument has been lost. The whole continent of Europe is now run by right wing governments with the exception of UK, Spain & Portugal. After May next year, only Spain and Portugal will be governed by left wing parties. Does this not tell you something? (make your own sandwiches?)

I'm chilled now. It's amazing what 3 points in the bag can do :-)

True, but those married to teachers who have lost their jobs are the lucky ones because at least they have the security of one breadwinner in the family with a guaranteed job (with inflation busting pay rises). Hey, I am happy with my lot. That is why I run my own business - no one can cast me on the scrapheap. It just gets my goat when people who have no right to complain do complain, especially when they should consider themselves lucky.

Jeez, I thought you lot were socialists. It is the way of the world, but before whining about whether you're getting 2%, 3% or 4% or whining about whether you can get bladdered on a friday night, just spare a thought for the 750,000 people, children and families that will suffer as a result of this recession. Many of these people weren't intelligent enough to qualify for being a teacher and had no choice but to work in "expendable" jobs in the private sector - not all of them had the choices you did. ...and many of you lot rip into Cameron because of his priveledged upbringing. ...so all in all, teachers won't get any sympathy from me (or many others). ..and as I said and will say again, teachers have it cushy. As for the socialist teachers, biggest bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. They're only socialist when it suits them and sod everyone else. With that attitude, I can see a few closet tories in the making.

See, even those who are diametrically opposed can find common ground and agree on some things.

OK, current pay rises agreed a while ago shouldn't bear relevance to todays inflation rate. However, if almost zero inflation / deflation persists, you won't have a problem with a pay freeze, will you? Where in hell does the unions claim for a 10% rise come from? To be fair, I wasn't trying to skew teachers pay, I merely took the stats from the Dept for Children Schools & Families. Anyway, sounds tough..... Meanwhile in the real world, in the 18-month period from the start of the recession in mid-2008 until the end of 2009 we will witness the loss of around three quarters of a million jobs. That's not far off TWICE the entire teaching profession in 18 months on the scrap heap.

Considering inflation is currently -1.6% and the number of people losing their jobs and taking pay cuts in the public sector highlights that 2%-2.5% is pretty damn good. This means that their real standard of living is increasing year on year at about 3.5% during the worst economic period since WWII Then you get crap like this...... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7996920.stm ...and wonder why people like CB Fry say what they do. The fact of the matter is that teachers (amoungst other public sector workers) have it damn cushy yet they complain? How does that work then? 210,000 people lost their jobs in the three months to July. My figures are from here: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/pnattach/20080008/1.html

I disagree there. Take sales people....there are excellent ones, good ones, mediocre ones and crap ones. Companies with good sales people perform better than ones without. It is no coincidence that the best sales people are paid the most as they generate more than crap ones. It is not simply the case of filling the post and it's job done. That may work in the public sector which probably explains the incompetence and wastage...simply putting people in roles irrespective of their abilities to perform. Only people working in the real world could ever understand that. You need good people to create wealth and some are better than others. By having the best, means that more wealth is created and thus there is more to distribute.

It is about balance and fairness. If you tax him too much, he may **** off abroad and generate wealth for someone else. Who's going to pay for those 5 nurses now?

From the Deopt of DCSF Comparative maximum salaries for good, experienced, classroom teacher 1997 = £21,318 2007 = £34,281 Cash increase = 60.80% Real Terms Increase (allowing for inflation) = 25.9% I would suggest that 25.9% increase over and above inflation is more than generous.

But aren't these one in the same thing? Matey boy would be paying 50% tax on his £200k bonus, which by my reckoning contributes £100k to society. This is on top of the tax on his salary. Not to mention.... 1) the extra corporation tax payable on the millions he made for his institution (assuming it contributed to the profits) 2) the extra tax paid on dividends by the shareholders of said institution as a result of increased profitability. So matey boy has contributed to society and you need people like this to generate wealth to pay for welfare. The tax on this one bonus, funds 5 nurses for a year. Not belittling the nurses, but just because they make a "non financial contribution" to society doesn't make them better. We are all in this together!