UK Politics

[Ommadawn]

6 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

I shall ask you what I ask anyone who seems to dislike unions.

Are you willing to give up paid sick leave, paid annual leave, bank holidays and all the other things we now all take for granted that unions won us the right to have?

If you are then perhaps explain why.
If not then perhaps be grateful for unions and put some faith in them wanting the best for workers.

 

PS Were you actually at the negotiations are are you just writing the comment without any knowledge of what was said?

I don't dislike unions (I was branch chairman of what was then Apex back in the day). I dislike them having too much power as they had back in the 1970's. The effect they had on the economy adversly affected their members as well.
As you well know, I wasn't at the negotiations but I can read and the reports I have read (representing most poliical views)   indicate that Starmer keeled over. I guess we'll see if that's correct or not.

[Ommadawn]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

beer and sandwiches

Bearing in mind what the union leaders earn, it will be more like champagne and caviar.

[Nobody Interesting]

4 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I don't dislike unions (I was branch chairman of what was then Apex back in the day). I dislike them having too much power as they had back in the 1970's. The effect they had on the economy adversly affected their members as well.
As you well know, I wasn't at the negotiations but I can read and the reports I have read (representing most poliical views)   indicate that Starmer keeled over. I guess we'll see if that's correct or not.

 

You should also know that union power now is nothing  like it was 50 years ago so comparisons to that era really hold no weight.

[Neil]

39 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

Didn't see much negotiating going on.
Starmer - This what we want to do.

Unions - This is what you're going to do

Starmer - er ok.

lets hope the unions are working in a more joined up way than some of the businesses i've dealt with today who place too much faith in their systems and can make the simple over complicated.

maybe I'm as bad, I've had to go and  look at my front door several times to remind myself what my flat number is.

[steviewevie]

22 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

I don't dislike unions (I was branch chairman of what was then Apex back in the day). I dislike them having too much power as they had back in the 1970's. The effect they had on the economy adversly affected their members as well.
As you well know, I wasn't at the negotiations but I can read and the reports I have read (representing most poliical views)   indicate that Starmer keeled over. I guess we'll see if that's correct or not.

 

yeah, we just don't know. There are just leeks and rumours. Nothing officially has been announced yet, and there is going to be another meeting in a few weeks.

[Ommadawn]

37 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

You should also know that union power now is nothing  like it was 50 years ago so comparisons to that era really hold no weight.

 

I do know that. I just don't want the union power to go back to those days.

[Nobody Interesting]

2 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

 

I do know that. I just don't want the union power to go back to those days.

 

Not a chance - any party that did that would be unelectable for the next 2/3 generations.

[steviewevie]

45 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

 There are just leeks and rumours. 

or even leaks.

[charlierc]

10 hours ago, lost said:

Suggestions the defector is going to be someone who voted for the labour amementment earlier in the week. If its Theresa May that would be hilarious.

Feels unlikely.

 

Although given how batshit insane the world is right now, who the hell knows anymore?

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

6 hours ago, Ommadawn said:

 I just don't want the union power to go back to those days.

it won't without the same huge workplaces. the 70s situation was a product of the age. the world of work is too different for anything similar. 

[Neil]

40 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

surely its about time the old git got off the gravy train and let someone  younger have a go while he spends his million pound pension.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, charlierc said:

Feels unlikely.

 

Although given how batshit insane the world is right now, who the hell knows anymore?

have you seen the spoofs of starmer welcoming rees-mogg to the labour party?

[Ryan1984]

9 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

Given the state of our country, he’s probably right here.

[mattiloy]

16 hours ago, Ommadawn said:

I don't dislike unions (I was branch chairman of what was then Apex back in the day). I dislike them having too much power as they had back in the 1970's. The effect they had on the economy adversly affected their members as well.
As you well know, I wasn't at the negotiations but I can read and the reports I have read (representing most poliical views)   indicate that Starmer keeled over. I guess we'll see if that's correct or not.

The economic problems of the 1970s were a product of an oil shock. The wage price inflation spiral was a myth peddled to breakup the unions.

 

Low wage growth for the lower income deciles, higher wage growth for the ones who set the wages is the result.

 

Bring back the unions!

[steviewevie]

Starmer announcing 6 election pledges this morning.

Exciting.

[Neil]

9 hours ago, Ryan1984 said:

Given the state of our country, he’s probably right here.

he blamed tory MPs for removing Boris, like party gate hadn't happened at all.

[steviewevie]

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

how well does that lineup with his pledges to get elected.

 

 

[steviewevie]

Just now, Neil said:

how well does that lineup with his pledges to get elected.

 

 

to be labour leader?

Not at all. Different election, different electorate.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 Different election, different electorate.

spot on!

[steviewevie]

[pink_triangle]

40 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Can’t argue with that. A complete focus on issues that the electorate care about while torys can focus on wokery and sex education in school.

[Nobody Interesting]

43 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

1) How?
2) How?
3) How will it work and how is it different to what we already have?
4) Hurrah, where will the money come from though?
5) How?
6) How? There are already more than 15,000 vacancies they cannot fill so just adding more leaves more unfilled.

They are good pledges but unless they say how they will be done they are meaningless like Sunaks pledges are meaningless.

A good start but until the details come they mean little.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

1) How?
2) How?
3) How will it work and how is it different to what we already have?
4) Hurrah, where will the money come from though?
5) How?
6) How? There are already more than 15,000 vacancies they cannot fill so just adding more leaves more unfilled.

They are good pledges but unless they say how they will be done they are meaningless like Sunaks pledges are meaningless.

A good start but until the details come they mean little.

 

can't fit the all that on a pledge card. But, also most people aren't that bothered about how these things get done, they just want them done. Usually it comes down to money and planning.