RugbyRebels

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:14 pm Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

Seriously? You're both posting this crap and telling sandy to take a look at himself?

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:32 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:14 pm Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

Seriously? You're both posting this crap and telling sandy to take a look at himself?

Wait, what thing is it you’re disagreeing with here?

sorry, my usual lack of clarity shining through again.

I'm disagreeing with Stom labelling Sandy a neo-fascist for starters, simply for having different politics.

Then there's the idea that a weary resignation that politicians of all stripes lie and cheat is somehow a justification of the actions of the conservative party.

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 8:14 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:57 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:05 pm

It just shows the instinct in this government - lie first, spin second, move on third. Even on such a small thing, the first thought is to gaslight.

Today, regular leadership candidate and "Big Beast" of the party, Sajid Javid has decided that he's not standing in the next election, a decision which I'm sure is completely unrelated to the fact that his seat is almost certain to be lost given current polling. Rats making sure they're not associated with the sinking ship, should they choose to make a comeback in 5 years' time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63835091

Puja

That’s every government for the past 25 years.

Not that I'm claiming Blair and Brown were bastions of honesty at all times (more than a few dead Iraqis can testify to that), but they absolutely didn't have this level of casual relationship with the truth.

Puja

Boris wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him on the arse. Blair was more polished but hardly more honest with his army of spin doctors setting the standard.

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:14 pm Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

You have a short memory if you think I support this government. And the Blair government was famous for its spin. Merely quoting a fact.

Don’t call me a fascist again sonny.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:17 pm sorry, my usual lack of clarity shining through again.

I'm disagreeing with Stom labelling Sandy a neo-fascist for starters, simply for having different politics.

Then there's the idea that a weary resignation that politicians of all stripes lie and cheat is somehow a justification of the actions of the conservative party.

To be clear, I’m not justifying anything that this government does. But I do recall the Campbell years so find it a bit odd not to recognise that all governments have only a passing relationship with the truth in recent years.

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:14 pm Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

lmao

If I were you, I wouldn't be in a rush to accuse anyone of anything, champ.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:35 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:14 pm Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

You have a short memory if you think I support this government. And the Blair government was famous for its spin. Merely quoting a fact.

Don’t call me a fascist again sonny.

The fact I think I called you a fascist says a lot...

No, this government and the past few have been on a different level to anything beforehand. We're in the age where right-wing governments routinely use the 'but Labour are just as bad' argument, and their voters lap it up. You parroting that is problematic.

cashead wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:07 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:14 pm Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

lmao

If I were you, I wouldn't be in a rush to accuse anyone of anything, champ.

Because I'm a different flavour of liberal to you? I don't get why you hate on everyone, no matter their 'flavour'.

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:12 pm

cashead wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:07 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:14 pm Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

lmao

If I were you, I wouldn't be in a rush to accuse anyone of anything, champ.

Because I'm a different flavour of liberal to you? I don't get why you hate on everyone, no matter their 'flavour'.

Whatever point you're trying to make would hold a lot more water if not for the fact that you were throwing shade at me over me calling Digby a racist, where you thought I wouldn't see it. Would you like me to dig up the three most recent posts Digby made on these forums?

Then there's your behaviour in this very thread. For someone who has taken it upon themself to go around demanding people live up to an arbitrary standard of conduct, you sure seem to have no issues disregarding it when it comes to yourself, or an apparent select group of people.

Consider this a warning: If you intend to continue fucking around, make sure you're ready to find out.

Also, you don't get to imply someone is a fascist, and then have a go at them for accusing you of doing that very thing.

Stom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:10 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:35 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 9:14 pm Right wing politician lies and cheats.

Normal human being: this government are a disgrace.

Supporter of basically neo-fascism: all politicians are the same.

Sandy, take a look at yourself. No, no they're not all the same. This is a repetition of the same rhetoric they've fed you to make their actions seem normal. It's not normal, it's disgusting and should be called out as such.

You have a short memory if you think I support this government. And the Blair government was famous for its spin. Merely quoting a fact.

Don’t call me a fascist again sonny.

The fact I think I called you a fascist says a lot...

No, this government and the past few have been on a different level to anything beforehand. We're in the age where right-wing governments routinely use the 'but Labour are just as bad' argument, and their voters lap it up. You parroting that is problematic.

Cut the crap. You’ve insulted another poster, I’ve asked you to refrain. Enough.

What.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:39 pm capture.png


What.

That’s pushing the argument beyond breaking point. Maybe if everyone was protesting about high gas prices but otherwise that’s just BS.

The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:28 pm The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

But as a matter of fairness, dividends should be restricted also.

Every industry is different, but the company I work for has seen revenues increase by 20% this year, and it is very closely tied to the general inflation in the economy. It also shows that inflation is higher than the headline figures seen in the press.

I am doubtful that they'll increase wages by that much (next agreement will be negotiated next year), although they did at least give us a one-off payment worth about 3-4% of annual salary already to offset our living costs. But they'd better not be hoping that that will be all they'll have to spend out.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:24 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:28 pm The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

But as a matter of fairness, dividends should be restricted also.

Every industry is different, but the company I work for has seen revenues increase by 20% this year, and it is very closely tied to the general inflation in the economy. It also shows that inflation is higher than the headline figures seen in the press.

I am doubtful that they'll increase wages by that much (next agreement will be negotiated next year), although they did at least give us a one-off payment worth about 3-4% of annual salary already to offset our living costs. But they'd better not be hoping that that will be all they'll have to spend out.

Totally agree. They definitely should be taxed the same.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:24 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:28 pm The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

There are some fairly obvious solutions to this - grants and schemes for insulation, boiler replacements, solar panels, heat pumps, combined with investment in onshore wind and tidal. However, that's a mixture of "the green crap" and heavy government intervention that are anathema to the Tory party.

I'd disagree that energy inflation is the sole cause - global food prices have been affected by Ukraine and domestic interest rates, mortgages, and rent were all pumped higher by Truss's little adventure, combined with Sunak's failure to refinance debt on a fixed rate when he was Chancellor.

Pujq

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:23 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:24 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:28 pm The thing that infuriates me most about the current government's attitude is the assumption that controlling inflation is the responsibility of the poor - that giving higher wages or benefits will fuel the spiral and thus must be clamped down upon for the good of us all.

And, in basic economic theory and looking just at the mathematics, it is absolutely correct - allowing wages to rise will likely increase inflation and inflation begets inflation which is not great.

However, from a human perspective, what does a family on fixed wages do when basic food prices go up by 25% in a year? It's all very well saying, "You shouldn't ask for higher wages because that fuels inflation," when there are people who cannot afford to live anymore. Why is it the bottom end who needs to be responsible and do their part to save the economy?

This is especially true when you question the causal link between higher wages and inflation. Quite apart from the fact that crushing demand flat into the ground, while a way of controlling inflation, also has something of an impact on growth (which tends to be the best way out of a problem), how many of the price rises have been 100% because of supply restrictions and how many have been because companies have seen that inflation is high and taken the opportunity to pad their prices a little bit on the basis that people are in the mood to take it because "that's just the cost of living crisis." Have we even looked at the other methods of controlling inflation (avoiding further quantitive easing for a start!)? How many of the right-wing predictions of "Oh, it'll just raise prices" have come to pass when the minimum wage has risen in the past? Have we looked at the possibility that a bit of inflation and wage rises might not be a terrible thing considering the massive gap in wealth between rich and poor and the fact that things like houses have already inflated way out of ordinary people's reaches and a bit of narrowing of that gap through inflation might not be a bad thing in the round?

Nope, it's just all, "No wage rises, we need to protect the value of investments and stockpiled wealth, I'm sure the peasantry will find some way to cope, I hear someone's come up with A Modest Proposal that might solve things."

Puja

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

There are some fairly obvious solutions to this - grants and schemes for insulation, boiler replacements, solar panels, heat pumps, combined with investment in onshore wind and tidal. However, that's a mixture of "the green crap" and heavy government intervention that are anathema to the Tory party.

I'd disagree that energy inflation is the sole cause - global food prices have been affected by Ukraine and domestic interest rates, mortgages, and rent were all pumped higher by Truss's little adventure, combined with Sunak's failure to refinance debt on a fixed rate when he was Chancellor.

Pujq

You're thinking mostly from a personal perspective, but energy cost is something that affects pretty much all of the economy. Not to mention just how many of our products rely on petroleum - all plastics for example, and that is a broader category of products than you'd first think. The increase in wheat prices doesn't come close in terms of impact.

I'm abroad so totally forgot about the nightmare that was Truss. It is still a very local... let's say... phenomenon.

Just put all billionaires in acid vats, and redistribute their wealth to education, hospitals, social welfare, public transport infrastructure and sustainable energy projects.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:01 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:23 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:24 pm

It is a risk that we should be cautious about, but we need to remember that this inflation is caused specifically by energy inflation. The increase in wages is not as relevant as the impact that increase (or decrease in real terms) has on the demand for energy. Because unless we can increase the energy supply to push prices back down, it will be necessary to destroy demand in order to prevent enduring inflation. I think the energy price rises themselves will push down demand to some extent, as well.

There are some fairly obvious solutions to this - grants and schemes for insulation, boiler replacements, solar panels, heat pumps, combined with investment in onshore wind and tidal. However, that's a mixture of "the green crap" and heavy government intervention that are anathema to the Tory party.

I'd disagree that energy inflation is the sole cause - global food prices have been affected by Ukraine and domestic interest rates, mortgages, and rent were all pumped higher by Truss's little adventure, combined with Sunak's failure to refinance debt on a fixed rate when he was Chancellor.

Pujq

You're thinking mostly from a personal perspective, but energy cost is something that affects pretty much all of the economy. Not to mention just how many of our products rely on petroleum - all plastics for example, and that is a broader category of products than you'd first think. The increase in wheat prices doesn't come close in terms of impact.

I'm abroad so totally forgot about the nightmare that was Truss. It is still a very local... let's say... phenomenon.

Lest we forget the impact of Brexit on UK prices...

As a teacher who went on strike last week and is supporting my colleagues who are on strike this week, I can tell you that our demands for wage increases, and I have spoken to a few postie's etc who feel the same, is only partly driven by the energy/cost of living increases. A good deal of wage rise demands is driven by genuine anger over the rich profiteering from everyone else's misery. Clearly that's been going on for years, but the way it was done during COVID and since with food, oil and energy, there is (I think) a growing feeling of them feckers shouldn't be getting away with this and if govts can find X billion down the back of the sofa for their gazillionaire mates, they can fecking well find it for everyone else too.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:37 pm

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:17 pm sorry, my usual lack of clarity shining through again.

I'm disagreeing with Stom labelling Sandy a neo-fascist for starters, simply for having different politics.

Then there's the idea that a weary resignation that politicians of all stripes lie and cheat is somehow a justification of the actions of the conservative party.

To be clear, I’m not justifying anything that this government does. But I do recall the Campbell years so find it a bit odd not to recognise that all governments have only a passing relationship with the truth in recent years.

Yes, sorry my clarification wasn't very clear on reading it back but I was agreeing with you

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:41 am As a teacher who went on strike last week and is supporting my colleagues who are on strike this week, I can tell you that our demands for wage increases, and I have spoken to a few postie's etc who feel the same, is only partly driven by the energy/cost of living increases. A good deal of wage rise demands is driven by genuine anger over the rich profiteering from everyone else's misery. Clearly that's been going on for years, but the way it was done during COVID and since with food, oil and energy, there is (I think) a growing feeling of them feckers shouldn't be getting away with this and if govts can find X billion down the back of the sofa for their gazillionaire mates, they can fecking well find it for everyone else too.

I understand the anger.


But.....

Do they think that the strikes will hurt those people in any way? Do the top .5% use public transport, or send their kids to state schools? Or use the NHS? The people who will suffer from the strikes are those who have to use those services and who are almost certainly not in that top tier bracket.

At the moment the strikers have the majority of the public onside (except for railway workers). How long that remains that way will be interesting to see. If this drags on then expect that to change. If the Tories can pain a picture of union-created chaos that Labour is then forced to be mute on, it might rally some people to the anti-union banner.

The way to punish to Tories for handing out money to their mates is to smash them at the next election, which could still be 2 years away.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:33 pm

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:41 am As a teacher who went on strike last week and is supporting my colleagues who are on strike this week, I can tell you that our demands for wage increases, and I have spoken to a few postie's etc who feel the same, is only partly driven by the energy/cost of living increases. A good deal of wage rise demands is driven by genuine anger over the rich profiteering from everyone else's misery. Clearly that's been going on for years, but the way it was done during COVID and since with food, oil and energy, there is (I think) a growing feeling of them feckers shouldn't be getting away with this and if govts can find X billion down the back of the sofa for their gazillionaire mates, they can fecking well find it for everyone else too.

I understand the anger.


But.....

Do they think that the strikes will hurt those people in any way? Do the top .5% use public transport, or send their kids to state schools? Or use the NHS? The people who will suffer from the strikes are those who have to use those services and who are almost certainly not in that top tier bracket.

At the moment the strikers have the majority of the public onside (except for railway workers). How long that remains that way will be interesting to see. If this drags on then expect that to change. If the Tories can pain a picture of union-created chaos that Labour is then forced to be mute on, it might rally some people to the anti-union banner.

The way to punish to Tories for handing out money to their mates is to smash them at the next election, which could still be 2 years away.

No I get it, there are many paths we as a society could take from here and the ones with all the strikes have a pretty decent chance of turning private sector employees against public sector employees.

But as you say, the next GE isn't for years yet, the anger is real and it's now and this is the only way we have of showing our anger. Yes it might be better to run a coherent and slick public relations campaign for the next 2 years but that is a path with its own issues and pitfalls, not least a generally (still) small c conservative population and the largely sympathetic press that feeds them their outrages.