Although I'd be inclined to add that so much of the media is utterly on side with this aim that it is perhaps not entirely easy for many people to see past the propaganda that they are being fed and have been fed for over 30 years.

Indeed. Because the only people in the world who have a right to demand that their income does not decrease (in real terms) or even stay the same, but actually rise, are those in the top income percentile.



It's a pity that this does not also apply to private housing landlords in London, who have hiked rents by an average of 7% in the last year alone.



It always seems that 'economic realities' only have to apply to some people.

I can see that you've done much research into this dispute and haven't relied on the right-wing propaganda pervading the media.



No really, I can, honest

If you read the statements from the companies involved you can see how much the average driver is on and exactly what the proposed changed to their conditions are. It isn't worth striking about and they've got to accept that the economic climate has changed.

For some, it has. The rich don't seem to be getting any less rich though, do they?

But not if you already have a vast income – and not if you're a domestic landlord in London, eh?



So in your world, the cost of living is rising hugely – but people should "accept that the economic climate has changed".



And what? Be unable to afford that rent? Have to choose between rent or food?



Have no disposable income – which would be so sensible, given how much of the economy is actually dependant on people having exactly that in order to survive, never mind actually grow.



So how is our service-based economy going to grow, in your mind and given your understanding of the 'changed economic climate'?

Whether that is the case or not (not going to argue the point as other people on here are better able to do so), faced with an enormous cut in wages and changes to working practises that undermine the safety not just of those workers but of everyone who comes within a reasonably large distance of them, they have the right to withdraw their labour and the employer has the duty to at least sit down and listen.



Neither is it helpful to say "well workers in sector A get this, so workers in sector 7G shouldn't expect to get that". It's a complete non-sequitur. The worst sort of straw-man, sixth-form debating society bull honky. (general point, not aimed at you [iper se[/i)

Can someone tell me how the tax rates for the 'rich' or the cost of rent in London have got to do with this? This isn't about the budget, or any other aspect of Government, it's about the drivers and their pathetic union not being willing to compromise on a fair deal offered to them.

Something I've been banging on about for ages; divide and conquer. First the disabled and sick, followed by the public sector workers, then the unemployed, then the pensioners and now any worker associated with the unions. It stands out a mile for me what they are doing.

Please enlighten us, what is this "fair deal" that has been offered to them?

Right-oh.

Mental note made that this dispute (not yet a strike) has definitely NOT been made worse by a total plonker of a minister suggesting that everyone fills up and has a bit spare tucked away.



Got it, ta.

Bastad coalition ministers, I've a good mind to sue Ed Davey.



[iThe Energy Minister, Ed Davey, today advised motorists to top-up their vehicles with fuel when they are half empty.



Speaking to the BBC Mr Davey said,



"I think our major advice is that people just need to do the sensible thing if they're going into the petrol station, they should get a full tank of petrol, not a half-tank of petrol, and they should top up where necessary."[/i



I've just followed his advice and I've now got £90 worth of unleaded in my diesel car's tank