The Labour party has bought its votes with money garnered in taxes. It has swathes of people on benefits, almost 6 million of them; it has even larger numbers in 'employment' wholly funded from the tax take. All of these Labour voters have secured themselves pensions many of which are available from the age of 60, and sometimes even earlier. The pensions of those in the non-state sectors of the economy have been ravaged by Gordon Brown.
Do the state-sector workers really believe that the ravaging of the private sector (whose sustainers, whether employees or employers, would not normally vote Labour) is not going to happen in the state sector too? Many have sold their votes for a promise; a promise given by the current, and last 10 years', government regime.
The days when what a government guaranteed, what an emploment contract agreed, could be enforced have long gone; as, indeed, has the rule of law in many areas of UK governance. And when these state-employees' mess of pottage is rescinded what are they going to do about it? Go on strike? That's a riskier undertaking in modern, Labour, England than it was a decade ago.
The threat to strike by the swollen state work-force of the Post Office must be so welcome to Brown and his regime; once those 'workers' have taken themselves off home, they need never report for 'work' again.
When did anyone last use the Post Office (except for the payment of benefits)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Now that post is much more my kind of thing HG and I personally like it as much as anything you have done for a while.
I `m not sure that the public sector Unions are as defenceless as you say . Croydonian had some stats out about the relative striking of the private and mendicant sectors and you can guess who was never at work.
The problem of the relation between voters and net tax takers is an important one though that has never really been properly resolved. There is a long discussion of its development over the 20th century in 'Cash Nexus' which charts predictable effects .
Hope you are well
..and how do you know about treasury Bills and such...not quite the thing for feak and weeble woman is it ?
Genderist! It was CU who remarked that not understanding basic economics rather excluded understanding the world.
Yes ....and your point is ?
Just kidding.
Post a Comment