Meant RBS – and changed to reflect that.

Indeed. And if you look at that as an indicator of how people trying to be responsible are treated, then how can you continue to demand that people behave responsibly?

I mentioned the Fred the Shred documentary earlier: when everyone can see people like him getting away with what he did (and he's far from alone), and paying no effective price for what he did and the damage caused by the company under his control, then what incentive is there for anyone to behave responsibly?

she trained and is paid for it but it doesn't make her saintly or a nice person and worthy of some sort of hero worship like she's above 'normal' human beings, it's a job, granted with a lot of responsibility but i don't hold nurses above any other trained and dedicated person

Yes, because they were wielding too much, undemocratic, power.

I appreciate each person's experience and each hospital is different, as is ours. I can name the hospitals that have been shocking in our experience and can name others that have been excellent. But, the shocking ones are not, in our experience, isolated. Of course, individual nurses even in within a partcularly good or bad hospital can be outstanding.

I asked that previously!

Really?
I always belived the folks is charge where elected by the union members?
So when Dave goes to Europe and bends over and takes one he will obviously come back and give the people a referendum then?
Seeing as that was what he promised before getting elected (So therefore one of the reasons he WAS elected) and what the 2011 bill says he should do if the EU treaty is changed.

You know seeing as we are talking about not doing things that are undemocratic.

Oh dear. Hit a nerve, did I?

Allow me to make it even simpler for you. If everyone is negotiating their own wage (and other conditions) individually, you can't just leave it up to individual department managers. What if all the cleaners deserved a raise, but none of the dinner ladies? If each department's budget is pre-determined, all those hard working cleaners would get a lower raise than they had deserved, whilst the dinner ladies would get a raise they hadn't warranted.

Either pay rises are negotiated collectively by a union, or everyone has the opportunity to negotiate for himself individually.

Aside from that, if a manager is responsible for, say, 50 staff, and he has to start negotiating pay, working hours, overtime, annual leave, pensions, sick pay etc etc with each one individually, he's not going to get a huge amount of managing done.

So tell us, how much should a person earning minimum wage be able to afford to put into his or her pension pot after paying for housing, heat, light and food?

He can't probably cos he's never been in that situation. Unlike me who 14 years ago earned £7,500, was single, had a mortgage, bills and car to run.

I'd be interested to see if Robinson can at least have a guess at how much money I had left at the end of the month to put into a pension.

Yes but she talks to me

The whole point was that they had destroyed the Heath government and WERE acting in an anti-democratic way. In case it escaped your notice, the union membership was a tiny, insignificant fraction of the UK electorate. The majority of UK voters severely disliked militant trade unionism. That seems to be a fact that still escapes people in / near to ex-mining towns.

No answer yet - so apparently no longer.

So why were Labour elected to power instead of Heath then?

It's also a good bet that if Jim Callaghan hadn't "done a Gordon Brown" and gone to the electorate in 1978, he would've been returned, Thatcher would've been dumped by the Conservatives and "Thatcherism" would never have entered the English vocabulary

Link or figures supporting this?

I also see you didn't want to touch the rest of my post.

BTW are EU bureaucrats voted for seeing as they have so much power?

The actual word 'bureaucrat' should give you a clue.

No. You just said something very stupid.

No, you were unable to answer some fairly valid points put to you by another poster, so you resorted to your usual diversionary tactics.

You still haven't told us how much a person on minimum wage should have left to put into their pension pot after paying rent, council tax, gas, electricity, food, travel expenses and any other living costs that might be relevant.

I'm sure you were just getting round to it though.

Did anyone watch Question Time last night?

If not, I suggest you iPlayer it and take particular notice of tory peer Constance Briscoe, a judge and author. I know the judiciary are not particularly noted for being "down wi' the hood" but goodness help anyone from a less than average background who appears before her. She's certainly moved a long way from her roots.

Could you give us a couple of quotes, not enough bandwidth for iplayer at the mo?

Glad you understood the second question, would you care to have a go at the first question now?
If not, no worries, as I see that you now acknowledge the need for a safety net and, as such, have now shifted from your original sweeping position of ...

I've been waiting for him to tell us the amount, have a good laugh then give him the reality of how it is.

"I think we spend far too much time subsidising people who really don't want to work"

"In this country we have a 'something for nothing' attitude, the disparity between those who go out to work and those who stay at home is not significant enough and we've got to wisen up. My view is that too many people are on benefit and they can go out to work"

She never suggested where all these jobs are though, nor did she have any idea of numbers involved.

I bet she got a hearty round of applause after those rebel rousing words though.

Thats what politics is all about, say something that makes the masses applaud without actually saying what it is that you do, why you are here, or what you intend to do about it.

You might be waiting a while. I fully expect he'll come back with some lazy answer about how I'm the stupid one and how he refuses to answer such a silly question.