The primary thing that needs to be addressed is campaigning and debating the issues properly. The level of debate from the Tories was abysmal. Labour policies were left completely unchallenged. Corbyn's policies were not too different from the far left policies put forward by Michael Foot. At that time Tory leaders and campaigners successfully got over why socialist policies are detrimental to the majority of people. This was helped by the failure of some of these policies in the 70's. The current batch of Tories failed to debate this. The campaign couldn't have been worse, let alone the own goals on care and pensions.
As somebody who was around at the time I can assure that Corbyn's policies are very different from those of Michael Foot's. I would agree though that the Tories failed miserably to debate just about any policies, including their own.
I was also around at the time. Although some of the details are different the general thrust is very much the same. Higher taxation, more state control, strong power in the hands of union leaders, CND and generally penalising entrepreneurship and success.
Can you show me the evidence to support your assertion because at the moment you are just stating opinion.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc)
I will give you higher taxation, but that is in common the manifesto's of the Lib Dems and the Tories (don't forget the dementia tax). The rest is merely your opinion and political beliefs and your last point agrees with me.
I don't agree your analyses but that wouldn't surprise you. But again the point I was making was a simple one. The Tories failed to properly debate and challenge Labour policies, whereas on previous occasions they had. I thought this thread was about what the Tories need to do to change.
I think you were making an argument against Labour based on economists disagreeing with their policies, when there are many economists that agree with them - that is the whole manifesto including the bits you are critical of. I think that is fair enough - how do you expect to make a political statement and then not recieve a political answer?
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have gained a majority, i.e. "won":
2015
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have failed to gain a majority, i.e. "lost":
2001 2005 2010 2017
The Tories cannot change their perception or improve their results until they acknowledge they lost the election. The longer they kid themselves that it's all ok, because they won the most seats and votes, the later the rebuilding starts and the longer it takes.
I hope this dawns on them very, very slowly.
Well, they did win the election because they're going to form a government.. otherwise.. who won the election?
And that kind of thinking is precisely my point! Until they realise they failed in their objective to secure a majority, they won't do the heavy lifting required to win again.
That's worth a big fat LOL.
So like the tories openly admitted to losing the 2010 election and then managed to pull themselves up from their bootstraps to win the 2015 election? Nope.
If they lost, should Corbyn resign for only doing slightly better than Gordon brown?
I'm more than happy for the Tories to think they didn't lose the election. Because, until they do, they will be hamstrung, unable to push through their aspirations and teetering on the brink of defeat with every vote.
The (first) General Election of 2017 is over. They shouldn't waste time thinking they won it. They shouldn't waste time congratulating themselves on how "unelectable" Jeremy Corbyn was prevented from winning a majority by a vanishingly small, few thousand votes.
They need to work out how to change and start making those changes very, very soon. Or prepare to lose the next election too.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
Joseph Stiglitz is very renowned in economics. He is easily one of the top 5 in the field and unlike Krugman or Piketty he doesn't have any political stigma. So when he has stated that we need a new economic model and to move away from the one the Tories are desperately clinging to like a piece of driftwood, they would do well to take heed.
There is now no justification for the continuation of the Tory economic program, and no respectable economist would dare put their name to the endorsement of austerity. We need radical spending, tax, capital and redistribution reforms desperately. We are one of the most unequal societies comparably speaking to other similar nations and the economic consensus is that inequality stifles growth.
Stiglitz is always interesting. I particularly support his views that Britain is easily capable of thriving outside the European Union, that the euro zone has very deep flaws, and that the response of eurozone officials to the debt crisis that erupted in Greece in 2010 has effectively doomed large parts of the monetary bloc to perennial depression.
@Fiiish I am so disappointed, I thought you might bite on this one.
Will have to improve my 'fishing'
Sorry, I hadn't had a chance to give it the response it deserves.
You may recall I was originally a Leaver until I saw who the crop of chancers were who would be leading the Brexit process.
From what I know of Stiglitz's assessment of the EU, it is the Euro that is the main problem and it is certainly not the free market between countries. I also imagine that if Stiglitz had the view that Britain could thrive outside the EU, it had caveats, including but not limited to those negotiating Brexit and leading a post-EU UK weren't an incompetent, dithering bunch of cowards and arseholes.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
Trade unions getting better pay and conditions for there members, the bastards.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
(@redman said) I don't agree your analyses but that wouldn't surprise you. But again the point I was making was a simple one. The Tories failed to properly debate and challenge Labour policies, whereas on previous occasions they had. I thought this thread was about what the Tories need to do to change.
@redman I am not quite sure what you mean so l will answer your points one by one as I have a bit more time now. My response in bold.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. - As previously said all the main parties wanted to raise taxes and as (I think) @Rob7Lee and @DamoNorthStand pointed out a few days ago the Tories have raised taxes for high earners over the last 7 years. More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare - well health care is still nationalised and the Tories are saying they don't want to privatise it, Royal Mail remained in public hands all through the Thatcher years (that well known Commie). With energy they were suggesting setting up regionalised competition to drive down prices as the promised competition through privatised services has not really materialised. But I will give you rail, but that is one I think a majority of Tories would probably do and they are going to cleverly wait for the licences to run out so it won't even cost us much. Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) - Working peoples rights was probably in it somewhere but isn't that what Theresa May was promising right at the beginning of the campaign? CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point - It is is in the manifesto to renew trident and they are committed to spending the 2% of GDP to support NATO, he might not support Trident but it is a party not a presidency. Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc) - We completely agree on this point, so if no economist past or present would argue that higher taxation reduces a desire to make profits, what is to stop us raising taxes a little so the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden?
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
I'm not questioning it just clarifying the actual phrase referred to in Afka's post. So to clarify, for the many not the few, caveat as long as you are a union member......
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
I think you misread my post. When I said pass on their inheritance I means the money the parents get from their parents (the children's grandparents). If you assume the age difference is approx 27 then when the children are 35 their parents would be 62 and their parents would be 89 (assuming they are still alive then).
You are, of course, correct we cannot afford to wait for our own parents to die before we buy something.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
I'm not questioning it just clarifying the actual phrase referred to in Afka's post. So to clarify, for the many not the few, caveat as long as you are a union member......
No, that isn't the caveat. The unions exist to protect the worker - or at least that is what they are supposed to do. That is a noble thing.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
I'm not questioning it just clarifying the actual phrase referred to in Afka's post. So to clarify, for the many not the few, caveat as long as you are a union member......
No, that isn't the caveat. The unions exist to protect the worker - or at least that is what they are supposed to do. That is a noble thing.
I've never said it isn't a noble thing, I was simply giving the full sentence that AFKA referred to, that is what it is and is what it says, they say union members will on average be paid better than non union members (on average), so what part of the caveat, that it only applies to union members is not true, or are Unite lying that they get better pay for their members, on average for Union embers (in this instance their members).
Are you a fool? - it is a statement that says to a worker - join a Union and we will get you a better deal. It isn't about doing better than a non union member - that non union member is you if you don't join a Union. It really isn't so hard to grasp that simple point is it. Unions are there to improve the pay, conditions and protections of their members. Not to put down non members.
Are you a fool? - it is a statement that says to a worker - join a Union and we will get you a better deal. It isn't about doing better than a non union member - that non union member is you if you don't join a Union. It really isn't so hard to grasp that simple point is it. Unions are there to improve the pay, conditions and protections of their members.
Yes I'm a fool Muttley I've got no idea what the statement says......
Just to confirm then, your OK that two people do the same job for differential pay as one is a member of a union and one isn't?
Being authentic and different is important to Millennials and Gen Z; Corbyn offers this.
If 91% of 18-24 year olds really did vote for Corbyn then in five years time he is looking good for power.
The Sun, Daily Mail, etc are no longer so influential as no one under 50 buys a national paper every day and 50% of the electorate is under 50.
The Millennials / Gen Z are not Brexit supporters.
Conservative means careful, adverse of change a safe pair of hands but they want to pitch us into a Brexit that will be bad for our economy for years to come.
We need skilled labour if it is true that the number of EU nurses applying for RCN membership has fallen from 1300/month last year to 50/month this year. How is the NHS going to cope?
Are you a fool? - it is a statement that says to a worker - join a Union and we will get you a better deal. It isn't about doing better than a non union member - that non union member is you if you don't join a Union. It really isn't so hard to grasp that simple point is it. Unions are there to improve the pay, conditions and protections of their members.
Yes I'm a fool Muttley I've got no idea what the statement says......
Just to confirm then, your OK that two people do the same job for differential pay as one is a member of a union and one isn't?
But you can't just read a statement, you have to understand the meaning. I was taking to another poster privately about this as we have noticed this pattern in your posts. It is no good looking up information and not reading it.
The Unions are there to protect workers - if you want to explain that to people for their own benefit, you have to explain the effects and advantages of belonging to a Union. Your statement would have some substance if the Union decided some people could join and others couldn't. It is not about being divisive. Just because you are stuck on your basic interpretation doesn't make it right. Unions were formed to unite workers - there is a bit of a clue in the word union - not divide them.
I was a Union rep many moons ago. I had people come to me who were being sh*t on. They were not Union members. I told them we could help them if they joined the union. We represented and helped them and they left the union after it had served its purpose. That is their right, but if everybody did that there wouldn't be any unions.
I do agree is is disgraceful that non-union members get different pay and benefits, but that is the fault of the people who pay them. You are right. The ideal would be that there is no need for unions, but unfortunately there is.
I was a Union rep many moons ago. I had people come to me who were being sh*t on. They were not Union members. I told them we could help them if they joined the union. We represented and helped them and they left the union after it had served its purpose. That is their right, but if everybody did that there wouldn't be any unions.
I do agree is is disgraceful that non-union members get different pay and benefits, but that is the fault of the people who pay them. The ideal would be that there is no need for unions, but unfortunately there is.
Fully agree. Those couple of days a year working from home when the tube is on strike are a godsend.
I do think there are examples where unions have exerted excessive power and don't agree with that being abused. But Unions are a force for good overall.
The current Conservative Party is backward looking and xenophobic and its primary appeal will be to those who fear change.
If a hard Brexit goes ahead the effect on staffing in certain areas such as the NHS and Social Care will be devastating and there won't be British staff to replace those that leave.
They need more forward thinking leaders but there seems no sign of these in the party.
Are you a fool? - it is a statement that says to a worker - join a Union and we will get you a better deal. It isn't about doing better than a non union member - that non union member is you if you don't join a Union. It really isn't so hard to grasp that simple point is it. Unions are there to improve the pay, conditions and protections of their members.
Yes I'm a fool Muttley I've got no idea what the statement says......
Just to confirm then, your OK that two people do the same job for differential pay as one is a member of a union and one isn't?
But you can't just read a statement, you have to understand the meaning. I was taking to another poster privately about this as we have noticed this pattern in your posts. It is no good looking up information and not reading it.
The Unions are there to protect workers - if you want to explain that to people for their own benefit, you have to explain the effects and advantages of belonging to a Union. Your statement would have some substance if the Union decided some people could join and others couldn't. It is not about being divisive. Just because you are stuck on your basic interpretation doesn't make it right. Unions were formed to unite workers - there is a bit of a clue in the word union - not divide them.
I fully understand the statement and yes in its purist form it is what you say. Unite workers as long as they are in the union.
But to suggest unions, at times, aren't devisive maybe ask a non union member who's gone into work, crossing a 'picket' line if they feel the union hasn't been devisive. There are stil people 30 years on that may have a different view and families that still don't talk because of it.
You haven't said if you are OK with pay differentials between 2 workers doing the same job simply because one pays a membership fee to be in a union and one doesn't. Through many of your election posts you've talked of the unfair balance between rich and poor and how some people are really struggling right now to put food on the table or are having to visit food banks. What if they can't afford the Union membership fee? Wouldn't they just be left behind?
Doesn't sound to me that the unions are a 'force of good for all'.......
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
Except by the time most people pass on their inheritance, their kids will be in the 50s and 60s and so won't be able to get a mortgage.
Then maybe we should (and a lot of people are) looking at ways to pass down some to your children when they need it, not when you are dead, also means likely to avoid any IHT that would otherwise become payable.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard.
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
If the unions No.1 reason for joining is to earn more than your fellow workers, doesn't that go against the Labour parties beliefs?
The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
You have just described why it is beneficial to be part of a trade union if you are allowed to that is. Is it a crime for a worker to try to get more money? The point isn't to try to get more money than non trade union members, it is by being part of a trade union it gives you more protection against being screwed.
I'm not questioning it just clarifying the actual phrase referred to in Afka's post. So to clarify, for the many not the few, caveat as long as you are a union member......
No, that isn't the caveat. The unions exist to protect the worker - or at least that is what they are supposed to do. That is a noble thing.
I've never said it isn't a noble thing, I was simply giving the full sentence that AFKA referred to, that is what it is and is what it says, they say union members will on average be paid better than non union members (on average), so what part of the caveat, that it only applies to union members is not true, or are Unite lying that they get better pay for their members, on average for Union embers (in this instance their members).
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they were lying! They used to be my union. The Union's only concern (because they didn't have negotiating rights with my employer) was to maximise membership subs. They never turned up to talk to us, you could never get them to return calls and were a total waste of space. The only reason I remained a member was to ensure I had access to the support of their lawyers because I foresaw potential "diffficulties" with my employer which didn't actually come to pass. Belonging to the union was otherwise an expensive waste of time and money. But I'm sure my subs contributed towards paying for McClusky's nice London gaff.
I don't know the details of your Union, but I do know some are more effective than others. The more members they have, the stronger the are generally. I also know, from what you have written that you decided it was in your interests to belong to said union.
Now, back to topic. Gove was on BBC Breakfast this morning. Now, whatever you think of him (and I'm on the dislike side) you could only admire his smooth presentation, very quick confident responses and delivery and, yes, even banter with the presenter. Blimey, he actually answered the questions too! It was as clear as day that these attributes were almost wholly lacking from the Tory election campaign.
If you cross a pocket line as a non union member that is fair enough, if you cross the line as a member who doesn't agree with the action you had a chance to vote on then you're out of order in my view and should leave the union straight away or get expelled. The guilds, rotary clubs, masons and such like are unions in their own way.
Comments
The (first) General Election of 2017 is over. They shouldn't waste time thinking they won it. They shouldn't waste time congratulating themselves on how "unelectable" Jeremy Corbyn was prevented from winning a majority by a vanishingly small, few thousand votes.
They need to work out how to change and start making those changes very, very soon. Or prepare to lose the next election too.
You may recall I was originally a Leaver until I saw who the crop of chancers were who would be leading the Brexit process.
From what I know of Stiglitz's assessment of the EU, it is the Euro that is the main problem and it is certainly not the free market between countries. I also imagine that if Stiglitz had the view that Britain could thrive outside the EU, it had caveats, including but not limited to those negotiating Brexit and leading a post-EU UK weren't an incompetent, dithering bunch of cowards and arseholes.
Give some of it away as early as you can, no point being the richest person in the grave yard. The exact phrase is "Trade Union Members earn on average 10% more than non members". So sounds just like those blooming Tories all they want to do is look after their own, bl00dy disgusted I am. "For the many, not the few"......... as Jim Royal would say..... My.....
No 2 is you can get more holiday ........
@redman I am not quite sure what you mean so l will answer your points one by one as I have a bit more time now. My response in bold.
Higher taxation - the Labour manifesto proposed increases of £10's of bn increase to income tax, corp tax, the financial services tax and others. - As previously said all the main parties wanted to raise taxes and as (I think) @Rob7Lee and @DamoNorthStand pointed out a few days ago the Tories have raised taxes for high earners over the last 7 years.
More state control - again in the manifesto; railways, royal mail, energy and healthcare - well health care is still nationalised and the Tories are saying they don't want to privatise it, Royal Mail remained in public hands all through the Thatcher years (that well known Commie). With energy they were suggesting setting up regionalised competition to drive down prices as the promised competition through privatised services has not really materialised. But I will give you rail, but that is one I think a majority of Tories would probably do and they are going to cleverly wait for the licences to run out so it won't even cost us much.
Union leaders - I am not sure if this was in the manifesto but I definitely remember seeing JC mentioning this (but can't provide the evidence) - Working peoples rights was probably in it somewhere but isn't that what Theresa May was promising right at the beginning of the campaign?
CND - JC failed to address his love of this organisation in his campaign. Even most of his supporters would acknowledge this point - It is is in the manifesto to renew trident and they are committed to spending the 2% of GDP to support NATO, he might not support Trident but it is a party not a presidency.
Penalising entrepreneurship and success - I don't think I know one economist, current or past, who would argue that higher taxation would reduce a individuals desire to produce profit (which in turn produces taxation, jobs etc) - We completely agree on this point, so if no economist past or present would argue that higher taxation reduces a desire to make profits, what is to stop us raising taxes a little so the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden?
You are, of course, correct we cannot afford to wait for our own parents to die before we buy something.
Just to confirm then, your OK that two people do the same job for differential pay as one is a member of a union and one isn't?
If 91% of 18-24 year olds really did vote for Corbyn then in five years time he is looking good for power.
The Sun, Daily Mail, etc are no longer so influential as no one under 50 buys a national paper every day and 50% of the electorate is under 50.
The Millennials / Gen Z are not Brexit supporters.
Conservative means careful, adverse of change a safe pair of hands but they want to pitch us into a Brexit that will be bad for our economy for years to come.
We need skilled labour if it is true that the number of EU nurses applying for RCN membership has fallen from 1300/month last year to 50/month this year. How is the NHS going to cope?
The Unions are there to protect workers - if you want to explain that to people for their own benefit, you have to explain the effects and advantages of belonging to a Union. Your statement would have some substance if the Union decided some people could join and others couldn't. It is not about being divisive. Just because you are stuck on your basic interpretation doesn't make it right. Unions were formed to unite workers - there is a bit of a clue in the word union - not divide them.
There should be no need for unions because each individual worker should be treated fairly and have appropriate protections.
I do agree is is disgraceful that non-union members get different pay and benefits, but that is the fault of the people who pay them. You are right. The ideal would be that there is no need for unions, but unfortunately there is.
If a hard Brexit goes ahead the effect on staffing in certain areas such as the NHS and Social Care will be devastating and there won't be British staff to replace those that leave.
They need more forward thinking leaders but there seems no sign of these in the party.
But to suggest unions, at times, aren't devisive maybe ask a non union member who's gone into work, crossing a 'picket' line if they feel the union hasn't been devisive. There are stil people 30 years on that may have a different view and families that still don't talk because of it.
You haven't said if you are OK with pay differentials between 2 workers doing the same job simply because one pays a membership fee to be in a union and one doesn't. Through many of your election posts you've talked of the unfair balance between rich and poor and how some people are really struggling right now to put food on the table or are having to visit food banks. What if they can't afford the Union membership fee? Wouldn't they just be left behind?
Doesn't sound to me that the unions are a 'force of good for all'.......
or get expelled.
The guilds, rotary clubs, masons and such like are unions in their own way.