hello its the editor here grumpy,s on the lav so this is my first chance to bash out a story.
err excuse me ED this is my column so move over and by the way have you been at my dom perignon 69 ?
sorry for the interuption
tonight i would like to share with you a letter which dropped through the door of grumpy towers this morning entitled why are we putting up prices ?
this is according to british gas and i quote.
BG.. north sea gas is running out we now buy gas in the competitive international market we have to pay the going rate which continues to increase.
AAG..the short sighted tory goverment and the iron lady mrs T decided that there was no market for home produced deep coal and closed many viable working pits all over the uk and bought cheap gas now the gas is running out we are now at the mercy of russia as we are buying russian gas and have to pay what they want.
BG.. britains national network requires a major upgrade energy bills are being used to fund this investment
AAG.. once again years of government run down when BG was in in the public sector like the railways with very little investment just mend and make do now our infristructure is falling apart and little investment since BG was sold but the fatcats still take their bonuses
BG.. the costs of government policies that will ensure all households can access affordable clean energy in the future are rising.
AAG.. not sure how to answer this one but yes the tories are back in charge again so its back to the old winter problem heat or eat?
so what does this tripe mean before you chuck it in the bin?
well for BG customers it means a 6% rise in gas and electric from the 16th of november.
mind you we are not alone the others are following suit and hiking up prices as well and just in time for crimbo as usual.
at least the fat cats will be nice and warm in their mansions with the heating turned up while the O.A.P down the road has to put another jumper on or snuggle up in a blanket because she cannot afford to have the central heating on.
AAG
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
-
the grumps
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:34 am
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
Correct me if I am wrong but I bet you are one of those people who think Margaret Thatcher was a wonderful prime minister.
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
gmc;1408366 wrote: Correct me if I am wrong but I bet you are one of those people who think Margaret Thatcher was a wonderful prime minister.
You really know how to put the boot in
You really know how to put the boot in
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
The hike Is about 8 % I believe which Is above the 2.5 % rise In pensions.
If your claiming £250 a week In pension then your 2.5 % Increase equates £6.25
If your using £15 worth of gas a week, then the 8 % Increase Is £1.20
Thus, It's proportionate. to your gas usage.
If your claiming £250 a week In pension then your 2.5 % Increase equates £6.25
If your using £15 worth of gas a week, then the 8 % Increase Is £1.20
Thus, It's proportionate. to your gas usage.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
Bruv;1408370 wrote: You really know how to put the boot in
Well I find most people who think thatcher wonderful aren't capable of joined up thinking. They complain about the fuel prices but don't make the connection to Margaret Thatcher whose economic policies have made this mess as it did with the railways. If market forces were actually working who does the government now need to consider forcing companies to keep make sure people are on their lowest tariffs? Why do we now import coal to fuel out power stations? Why do we now pay more in subsidies to private rail companies than we did when the railways were nationalised and why are rail companies making a profit while being subsidised by the taxpayer?
Seriously can you think of any of Thatcher's reforms that have actually been of long term benefit to this country?
Well I find most people who think thatcher wonderful aren't capable of joined up thinking. They complain about the fuel prices but don't make the connection to Margaret Thatcher whose economic policies have made this mess as it did with the railways. If market forces were actually working who does the government now need to consider forcing companies to keep make sure people are on their lowest tariffs? Why do we now import coal to fuel out power stations? Why do we now pay more in subsidies to private rail companies than we did when the railways were nationalised and why are rail companies making a profit while being subsidised by the taxpayer?
Seriously can you think of any of Thatcher's reforms that have actually been of long term benefit to this country?
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
gmc;1408461 wrote:
Seriously can you think of any of Thatcher's reforms that have actually been of long term benefit to this country?
What about Unions requiring a full ballot and a majority vote to strike ?
Seriously can you think of any of Thatcher's reforms that have actually been of long term benefit to this country?
What about Unions requiring a full ballot and a majority vote to strike ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
Bruv;1408475 wrote: What about Unions requiring a full ballot and a majority vote to strike ?
If you applied the same criteria to national elections then the present coalition. would not have a mandate to rule - neither would any of the tory or labour governments of the last thirty years. Instead we have an MP winning a seat with less than 30% of the vote cast in their favour, put another way over 60% of the electorate voted against thatcher just as over 60% voted against Tiny blair yet they still got in.
However, to answer your question. Nothing wrong in principle but it was clearly intended to curb the ability of unions to represent their members. Not content with that.
We’ll rewrite law on strikes, Francis Maude warns the unions - Telegraph
At present, once a union has voted to strike, a walkout must be held within 28 days or a new ballot must be held. But if a strike is held, the union then has a legal “mandate for more strikes or other action until the dispute ends.
Mr Maude says the rule gives unions a “perverse incentive to strike and should be changed.
The Coalition will consider a new legal time limit on the mandate that a union has for industrial action after a vote. The limit could be as low as three months.
To hold more strikes after that limit, a union would have to hold a new ballot of members. Each ballot costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, and ministers believe the change could be a significant obstacle to future strikes. “There is a case for change. We’ll want to look at this carefully, Mr Maude says.
Can you think of any legislation passed by a tory government to protect workers rights in the work place?
If you applied the same criteria to national elections then the present coalition. would not have a mandate to rule - neither would any of the tory or labour governments of the last thirty years. Instead we have an MP winning a seat with less than 30% of the vote cast in their favour, put another way over 60% of the electorate voted against thatcher just as over 60% voted against Tiny blair yet they still got in.
However, to answer your question. Nothing wrong in principle but it was clearly intended to curb the ability of unions to represent their members. Not content with that.
We’ll rewrite law on strikes, Francis Maude warns the unions - Telegraph
At present, once a union has voted to strike, a walkout must be held within 28 days or a new ballot must be held. But if a strike is held, the union then has a legal “mandate for more strikes or other action until the dispute ends.
Mr Maude says the rule gives unions a “perverse incentive to strike and should be changed.
The Coalition will consider a new legal time limit on the mandate that a union has for industrial action after a vote. The limit could be as low as three months.
To hold more strikes after that limit, a union would have to hold a new ballot of members. Each ballot costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, and ministers believe the change could be a significant obstacle to future strikes. “There is a case for change. We’ll want to look at this carefully, Mr Maude says.
Can you think of any legislation passed by a tory government to protect workers rights in the work place?
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
gmc;1408477 wrote:
However, to answer your question. Nothing wrong in principle but it was clearly intended to curb the ability of unions to represent their members. Not content with that. ....................Can you think of any legislation passed by a tory government to protect workers rights in the work place?
I thought it was so that a few hard liners couldn't run things.
Ironically what we are talking about already?
However, to answer your question. Nothing wrong in principle but it was clearly intended to curb the ability of unions to represent their members. Not content with that. ....................Can you think of any legislation passed by a tory government to protect workers rights in the work place?
I thought it was so that a few hard liners couldn't run things.
Ironically what we are talking about already?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
Bruv;1408500 wrote: I thought it was so that a few hard liners couldn't run things.
Ironically what we are talking about already?
It was and there was a good case for it at the time I remember the wild cat strikes and the chaos of the seventies but I also remember the miners strikes and the deliberate setting out to destroy the right of people to join unions and saw the treatment meted out to anyone sticking up for themselves against exploitation just as I recall a union steward telling one of her members in no uncertain terms that if he didn't want to work there were plenty of people out there who would take his job. It never is just black and white - militant unions against up standing corporate management. The unions lost their power base with the decline of mass industry in the UK, arguably they would have lost it anyway. They only really have that kind of power in the public sector now and the tories are out to break that. One of the the first thing Thatcher did was extend the time an employer had to sack an employee without them being able to go to a tribunal from one year to two. There are lots of companies who used to lay off people at just under two years, wait the qualifying period and the re-employ them, people had to accept it when there is high unemployment. I also remember the way our economy recovered thanks to our membership of the EU although Thatcher always claimed it was her policies that encouraged inward investment.
Actually I could rant on for ages, But you still haven't come up with any good things that Thatcher did. I can come up with a long list of things that were destructive. Where is a real tory when you want to argue with them. ( you seem to intelligent to be one) The BNP are a poor man's substitute, more bare knuckle and less polished.:sneaky:
Grumpy jut rants and never responds to a challenge. But then daily mail readers are not used to actually thinking
Ironically what we are talking about already?
It was and there was a good case for it at the time I remember the wild cat strikes and the chaos of the seventies but I also remember the miners strikes and the deliberate setting out to destroy the right of people to join unions and saw the treatment meted out to anyone sticking up for themselves against exploitation just as I recall a union steward telling one of her members in no uncertain terms that if he didn't want to work there were plenty of people out there who would take his job. It never is just black and white - militant unions against up standing corporate management. The unions lost their power base with the decline of mass industry in the UK, arguably they would have lost it anyway. They only really have that kind of power in the public sector now and the tories are out to break that. One of the the first thing Thatcher did was extend the time an employer had to sack an employee without them being able to go to a tribunal from one year to two. There are lots of companies who used to lay off people at just under two years, wait the qualifying period and the re-employ them, people had to accept it when there is high unemployment. I also remember the way our economy recovered thanks to our membership of the EU although Thatcher always claimed it was her policies that encouraged inward investment.
Actually I could rant on for ages, But you still haven't come up with any good things that Thatcher did. I can come up with a long list of things that were destructive. Where is a real tory when you want to argue with them. ( you seem to intelligent to be one) The BNP are a poor man's substitute, more bare knuckle and less polished.:sneaky:
Grumpy jut rants and never responds to a challenge. But then daily mail readers are not used to actually thinking
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
I remember attending a Union meeting of postal workers prior to the long strike way back in the 70's.
Out of an office staff of 1000's not sure how many but literally several 1000 could have turned up, only 10's were there, a show of hands later and we were on strike.
I always thought of Thatcher as the administrator of bad medicine and discipline, sort of bad cop good cop, she took on the unliked jobs, because she had the balls and vision and 'knew' she was right.
I see Hitler and Mugabe in the same light, good leaders who went too far.
Out of an office staff of 1000's not sure how many but literally several 1000 could have turned up, only 10's were there, a show of hands later and we were on strike.
I always thought of Thatcher as the administrator of bad medicine and discipline, sort of bad cop good cop, she took on the unliked jobs, because she had the balls and vision and 'knew' she was right.
I see Hitler and Mugabe in the same light, good leaders who went too far.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
Bruv;1408524 wrote: I remember attending a Union meeting of postal workers prior to the long strike way back in the 70's.
Out of an office staff of 1000's not sure how many but literally several 1000 could have turned up, only 10's were there, a show of hands later and we were on strike.
I always thought of Thatcher as the administrator of bad medicine and discipline, sort of bad cop good cop, she took on the unliked jobs, because she had the balls and vision and 'knew' she was right.
I see Hitler and Mugabe in the same light, good leaders who went too far.
Sorry Bruv but just in case I grab the wrong end of a very shitty stick, can you clarify that last sentence ? It's making me very uncomfortable
Maybe even a thread on it
Out of an office staff of 1000's not sure how many but literally several 1000 could have turned up, only 10's were there, a show of hands later and we were on strike.
I always thought of Thatcher as the administrator of bad medicine and discipline, sort of bad cop good cop, she took on the unliked jobs, because she had the balls and vision and 'knew' she was right.
I see Hitler and Mugabe in the same light, good leaders who went too far.
Sorry Bruv but just in case I grab the wrong end of a very shitty stick, can you clarify that last sentence ? It's making me very uncomfortable
Maybe even a thread on it
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
Bruv;1408524 wrote:
I see Hitler and Mugabe in the same light, good leaders who went too far.
:yh_shame:yh_shame:yh_shame
You been on the sauce?
I see Hitler and Mugabe in the same light, good leaders who went too far.
:yh_shame:yh_shame:yh_shame
You been on the sauce?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
the grumps
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:34 am
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
quote gmc Grumpy jut rants and never responds to a challenge. But then daily mail readers are not used to actually thinking
naughty naughty gmc having a go at your grumps
so what about scottish mines ,steel and shipbuilding on the clyde all destroyed by the government.
is SNP two faced salmand any better ??
p.s i read the sun
naughty naughty gmc having a go at your grumps
so what about scottish mines ,steel and shipbuilding on the clyde all destroyed by the government.
is SNP two faced salmand any better ??
p.s i read the sun
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
Snowfire;1408581 wrote: Sorry Bruv but just in case I grab the wrong end of a very shitty stick, can you clarify that last sentence ? It's making me very uncomfortable
Maybe even a thread on it
I reread it and still agree with myself.....
I am no historian, but the way I understand it Hitler took a country from the depths of ravaging inflation, deep in despair after being slapped into submission after WW1 with crippling debts and united a divided nation to rebuild itself. He restored their sense of pride, had a hand in rebuilding their infrastructure and industry.
I am not saying I totally agree with what he then went on to do, or his motives for what he eventually did.
I don't think anybody can deny he was a charismatic and masterful leader, who had he stopped short of wanting world domination would have been recognised for his strengths rather than his megalomania.
Mugabe too..........We only see his story from western media stand point.
His story is more confusing than Hitlers, Mugabe was manoeuvred into power by the Brits, he then took on the might of the UK and US Governments who reneged on agreements to return land to African hands by subsidising the sale as and when the land became available over time.
Only when he demanded the agreement was honoured did the story turn nasty.
That was when the Zimbabwe government began legally to return the land to African hands, this was too slow for the veterans who took land back violently.
If you take your information from the African view point Mugabe was a freedom fighter who lead his nation to independence and into being the best educated nation on the continent, if you listen to his broken English ranting speeches and put on an African head it all makes a lot more sense.
If he had stopped there and not gone onto the same megalomaniac excesses of Hitler, he too would be seen as a very clever leader.
Maybe even a thread on it
I reread it and still agree with myself.....
I am no historian, but the way I understand it Hitler took a country from the depths of ravaging inflation, deep in despair after being slapped into submission after WW1 with crippling debts and united a divided nation to rebuild itself. He restored their sense of pride, had a hand in rebuilding their infrastructure and industry.
I am not saying I totally agree with what he then went on to do, or his motives for what he eventually did.
I don't think anybody can deny he was a charismatic and masterful leader, who had he stopped short of wanting world domination would have been recognised for his strengths rather than his megalomania.
Mugabe too..........We only see his story from western media stand point.
His story is more confusing than Hitlers, Mugabe was manoeuvred into power by the Brits, he then took on the might of the UK and US Governments who reneged on agreements to return land to African hands by subsidising the sale as and when the land became available over time.
Only when he demanded the agreement was honoured did the story turn nasty.
That was when the Zimbabwe government began legally to return the land to African hands, this was too slow for the veterans who took land back violently.
If you take your information from the African view point Mugabe was a freedom fighter who lead his nation to independence and into being the best educated nation on the continent, if you listen to his broken English ranting speeches and put on an African head it all makes a lot more sense.
If he had stopped there and not gone onto the same megalomaniac excesses of Hitler, he too would be seen as a very clever leader.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
british gas up their prices the AA grumpy column
the grumps;1408589 wrote: quote gmc Grumpy jut rants and never responds to a challenge. But then daily mail readers are not used to actually thinking
naughty naughty gmc having a go at your grumps
so what about scottish mines ,steel and shipbuilding on the clyde all destroyed by the government.
is SNP two faced salmand any better ??
p.s i read the sun
Actually so do I on occasion, I tend to browse through them all on line. Salmond is a sleekit wee sweetie wifie but then we donlt have to elect him after independence do we. The odds are we will have a coalition government since many of those voting for the SNP are doing so by way of protest at the antics of the labour and tory parties. The lib dems I suspect will have no scottish MP's after the next election. Not just the government also an inability to adapt to a changing world. The new forth road bridge is being built using steel from India as you can imagine the SNP are somewhat embarrassed about that. The menie estate and |donald trumps golf course has caused a lot of bad feeling as well. Atb this point who leads the SNP is irrelevant if we have a referendum the main factor will be do we trust the tories and the westminster government or is it time to let england sink or swim on it's own. Cameron;s trust me I'll give you more powers if you vote no sound like an invitation to the prefects room in a public school for a good thrashing. Bend over here come the tories, if only the lib dems had remembered those words.
naughty naughty gmc having a go at your grumps
so what about scottish mines ,steel and shipbuilding on the clyde all destroyed by the government.
is SNP two faced salmand any better ??
p.s i read the sun
Actually so do I on occasion, I tend to browse through them all on line. Salmond is a sleekit wee sweetie wifie but then we donlt have to elect him after independence do we. The odds are we will have a coalition government since many of those voting for the SNP are doing so by way of protest at the antics of the labour and tory parties. The lib dems I suspect will have no scottish MP's after the next election. Not just the government also an inability to adapt to a changing world. The new forth road bridge is being built using steel from India as you can imagine the SNP are somewhat embarrassed about that. The menie estate and |donald trumps golf course has caused a lot of bad feeling as well. Atb this point who leads the SNP is irrelevant if we have a referendum the main factor will be do we trust the tories and the westminster government or is it time to let england sink or swim on it's own. Cameron;s trust me I'll give you more powers if you vote no sound like an invitation to the prefects room in a public school for a good thrashing. Bend over here come the tories, if only the lib dems had remembered those words.