View Full Version : Labour and the Unions
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 21:42
I must say I am chuckling away at the unions throwing their toys out of the pram over Labours backing of the public sector pay squeeze. Quite how pople trust such bodies I dont know. They seemingly want political power (note the GMB head saying hes warned the labour leadership personally about their policy choice) without the responsibility.
Its about time the unions came into the real world me thinks. Its always the big business/greedy tories/capitalists at fault, its never their workers and themselves being unable to adapt to a changing world and wanting more and mroe and more when the wider world is giving less and less.
I think darwin called it survival of the ones best adapted, and 19th century unions aint cut out for the 21st century world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/17/union-rebellion-ed-miliband-grows
The fact of the matter is that all of the 3 main UK parties are locked into protecting a broken financial/economic model of their own making, ie deregulated capitalism. The outcome will be that the poorest in society will get squeezed into more poverty.
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 22:01
Mmm, possibly. Im not sure the model is the problem, I think peoples expecations of it are. Capitalism is that, acruing of capital. There is only so much capital. Give everyone a million and a billion is what makes you rich. I think most forget that.
Still, we are WAY better off than in the 70s when bins didnt get emptied and electricty cut off twice a day eh?
John Little
17-Jan-12, 22:03
This is not new.
The Labour Party was set up and funded by the Trades Unions in response to the Lyons V Wilkins judgment of 1899 and the Taff Vale decision in 1900. It was considered necessary to get working class representation in Parliament in order to change the law to benefit workers more. Its objective was largely achieved in the Trades Disputes act of 1906 when the Unions won back the right to strike and the right to picket.
The first lot of Labour MPs were nothing to write home about. 42 largely working class men had not a lot to say in the face of a house of Commons dominated by public school men skilled in oratory and the law. Labour needed more educated MPs and found them in the Fabian Society who were Socialists. The trouble is that Guild Socialism or Trades Unionism does not mix with Socialism.
This was apparent right from the word go, with the first Labour Government when the Unions expected all their dreams to come true, only to be informed by Ramsay McDonald that he was Prime Minister for the whole people, not just the Trades Unions- and appointed a Cabinet of moderates to deliver a moderate programme.
The Labour Party thus has a split soul - it always has done.
Its thinkers are not its bankers.
They want different things.
And if it wasn't for Unions you would have been down the mine or up a chimney when you were about 8 years old weezer!!!
Somebody has to keep the Tories and those greedy bankers in check and if the Unions didn't do it who would?
And if it wasn't for the Unions we would be working for a bowl of rice like they do in the far East...Be thankful that our Country has Unions weezer, we would be in a terrible state if we didn't have them!!
C3...................:eek::eek:
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 22:21
This is not new.
The Labour Party was set up and funded by the Trades Unions in response to the Lyons V Wilkins judgment of 1899 and the Taff Vale decision in 1900. It was considered necessary to get working class representation in Parliament in order to change the law to benefit workers more. Its objective was largely achieved in the Trades Disputes act of 1906 when the Unions won back the right to strike and the right to picket.
The first lot of Labour MPs were nothing to write home about. 42 largely working class men had not a lot to say in the face of a house of Commons dominated by public school men skilled in oratory and the law. Labour needed more educated MPs and found them in the Fabian Society who were Socialists. The trouble is that Guild Socialism or Trades Unionism does not mix with Socialism.
This was apparent right from the word go, with the first Labour Government when the Unions expected all their dreams to come true, only to be informed by Ramsay McDonald that he was Prime Minister for the whole people, not just the Trades Unions- and appointed a Cabinet of moderates to deliver a moderate programme.
The Labour Party thus has a split soul - it always has done.
Its thinkers are not its bankers.
They want different things.
Good point! Plus Milliband is a weasel isnt he!
John Little
17-Jan-12, 22:25
Oh Milliband would stab his own brother in the back if he had to, to get what he wants...
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 22:27
And if it wasn't for Unions you would have been down the mine or up a chimney when you were about 8 years old weezer!!!
Somebody has to keep the Tories and those greedy bankers in check and if the Unions didn't do it who would?
And if it wasn't for the Unions we would be working for a bowl of rice like they do in the far East...Be thankful that our Country has Unions weezer, we would be in a terrible state if we didn't have them!!
C3...................:eek::eek:
Yes of course I would, because private enterprise fully endorses child slave labour.
And didnt the banks take like £500bn of UK taxpayer cash during a labour administration, and one that had been in power for 1round 10 years? Yes, it think they did. What now??
Infact....correct me if i am wrong, but didnt that big fat capitalist tory greedy pig blood sucking Cameron just a week or so ago say he is going to do somethign about executive pay???? cant think of a similar Labour policy can you from their 13 year stint in power? And isnt his government raising the tax code to 8100 in April, the second year running they have increaed the basic tax free allowance??
Unions are important. This lot are a joke though Corrie. You and I both know it. Or maybe you dont.
Awaitning your response with baited breath...........
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 22:31
Yes. I cant stand that Milliband, but at least hes sticking to his guns thus far. It will be interesting to see if the unions withdraw their funding, if they do i can see a leadership challenge on the horizon, although quite who will take over I dont know! Cameron makes mincemeat of Milliband at the despatch box reguralry, and hes one of the smarter ones.
John Little
17-Jan-12, 22:37
The danger in Milliband is that he fails to offer an alternative for people to vote for. If Milliband stays leader of the Labour Party then Scotland will be an independent country ere too long and Cameron will win the next election by default, not because he has anything to say.
Cameron is Stanley Baldwin again - he will win not because he is worth owt, but because the alternative is dire.
And if Milliband stays Labour leader the Lib Dems are finished.
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 22:43
Good point about the independence. I never thought of that to be honest. First place labour voter will turn will be the nationalist, although whether that transpires to a yes vote in 2014 remains to be seen.
Do you not like Cameron? Im amazed at the hatred he generates from some sections of society when hes done more (and in most cases been left with a rubbish hand to deal with from that joke of blair/brown era) for the common man in the street than labour have since about 1950! I put it down to that stupid anti-english streak than runs through many here.
John Little
17-Jan-12, 22:46
No - Cameron is doing a bad job. He and Osborne think they know better than JM Keynes. By allowing excessive profits to bankers, record levels of fuel prices, and high rates of purchase tax (VAT) he allows money to leach out of the economy in a way that, de facto, is tax.
At the same time he presides over public sector cuts, placing many people on unemployment benefit and depressing the very consumer demand necessary for recovery.
He pursues a wishful thinking right wing ideology that does not make economic sense. He believes in stimulating the wealth producers in the theory that if they create wealth then it will trickle down to the rest of society. In reality they invest their profits in China.
Not good.
I wouldn't write off Milliband too early. The bias from BBC and SKY news is that whenever a relatively rare opinion poll shows that the tories nudge in front of the Labour, it suddenly becomes that Milliband is a loser. But when the vast majority of opinion polls show that Labour is well in front of the opinion polls, it goes unreported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_next_United_Kingdom_general _election
No - Cameron is doing a bad job. He and Osborne think they know better than JM Keynes. By allowing excessive profits to bankers, record levels of fuel prices, and high rates of purchase tax (VAT) he allows money to leach out of the economy in a way that, de facto, is tax.
At the same time he presides over public sector cuts, placing many people on unemployment benefit and depressing the very consumer demand necessary for recovery.
He pursues a wishful thinking right wing ideology that does not make economic sense. He believes in stimulating the wealth producers in the theory that if they create wealth then it will trickle down to the rest of society. In reality they invest their profits in China.
Not good.
Thank you John......I have been trying to get this message over to weezer for months now but he doesn't listen to me......Perhaps he will listen to an educated Man like yourself, you get it over far better than I ever could.
C3..............;)
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 22:56
Come on john, surely you can see at elast hes said hes goung to do something about executive pay? It doesnt happen overnight and its not executive pay thats caused us to be running a £150bn deficit for the past decade either is it? Surely you can appreciate that?
No one is willing to raise taxes on anyone, so cuts must be made. Every day living on borrowed money makes you poorer yet people seem content to live on the never never then moan when they get asked to pay for it!
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 22:57
Thank you John......I have been trying to get this message over to weezer for months now but he doesn't listen to me......Perhaps he will listen to an educated Man like yourself, you get it over far better than I ever could.
C3..............;)
Stop jumping on the bandwagon, can you answer these points please?
Yes of course I would, because private enterprise fully endorses child slave labour.
And didnt the banks take like £500bn of UK taxpayer cash during a labour administration, and one that had been in power for 1round 10 years? Yes, it think they did. What now??
Infact....correct me if i am wrong, but didnt that big fat capitalist tory greedy pig blood sucking Cameron just a week or so ago say he is going to do somethign about executive pay???? cant think of a similar Labour policy can you from their 13 year stint in power? And isnt his government raising the tax code to 8100 in April, the second year running they have increaed the basic tax free allowance??
Unions are important. This lot are a joke though Corrie. You and I both know it. Or maybe you dont.
Awaitning your response with baited breath...........
John Little
17-Jan-12, 22:58
Milliband has not got it.
This is not about polls, or intellect, or ideology or sense.
It's about propaganda and sound bites.
The winner seizes the moment, grabs the imagination and focuses public opinion with a vision.
Or wins, like Cameron, because the other guy is no good.
Milliband may not be a loser- but he does not look like a winner.
And in this game that is everything.
John Little
17-Jan-12, 23:03
Come on john, surely you can see at elast hes said hes goung to do something about executive pay? It doesnt happen overnight and its not executive pay thats caused us to be running a £150bn deficit for the past decade either is it? Surely you can appreciate that?
No one is willing to raise taxes on anyone, so cuts must be made. Every day living on borrowed money makes you poorer yet people seem content to live on the never never then moan when they get asked to pay for it!
We all live on the never never- as I have remarked before there is more debt in the world than money. Money is a notional measure on which a mark is made.
We need to be more prudent in our spending. But that is relative too.
Cameron says he will do 'something' about executive pay. Firstly - I'll believe it when I see it. and secondly, there is 'doing something' and there is 'DOING SOMETHING' which are quite different.
Cameron is, to me at any rate, a plutocrat with a plutocrat's instincts. He is no demagogue and the reason he is Prime Minister is not through his own merits but because the opposition failed to put anyone decent up against him.
They will do so again I fear.
weezer 316
17-Jan-12, 23:14
Well I certainly disagree with us all living on the never never, I certianly dont, just look at the car I drive and the 2 holidays a year I take! I think the idea "we all do it" is a bit.....well a bit apologetic for recklessness. If alot of people do something foolish it doesnt make it ok and certainly not in the common good.
Well give the man a chance on executive pay. But again, thats fine, its unrelated to the cuts and you know this. We havent run a £150bn deficit since like 2001 for Fred Goodwin (knighted by bloody labour, ironic or what) to cavort into the sunset. We did it becuase people are a) unwiling to pay more tax and b) expect someone else to pay for services they consume yet barely scratch the surface on funding.
John Little
17-Jan-12, 23:24
Well I certainly disagree with us all living on the never never, I certianly dont, just look at the car I drive and the 2 holidays a year I take! I think the idea "we all do it" is a bit.....well a bit apologetic for recklessness. If alot of people do something foolish it doesnt make it ok and certainly not in the common good.
Well give the man a chance on executive pay. But again, thats fine, its unrelated to the cuts and you know this. We havent run a £150bn deficit since like 2001 for Fred Goodwin (knighted by bloody labour, ironic or what) to cavort into the sunset. We did it becuase people are a) unwiling to pay more tax and b) expect someone else to pay for services they consume yet barely scratch the surface on funding.
You mis understand me. I am not condemning anyone for living on the heap of debt that makes up the world financial system.
That's just the way it is. We, or more accurately, our governments, run our economies in the expectation of growth and profit. We spend on services or infrastructure what we EXPECT to make in the future. So our economies hang on expectation and nothing more. The problem comes when the confidence of growth or profit fails.
You did not create this situation any more than I did. It's just the way the system works.
Even the money in your pocket does not really exist. On your banknotes it is even written just as a promise to pay you on demand. Fear that the promise might not be kept causes job losses and falling values. Get rid of the fear and the economy booms.
The uneven distribution of wealth is supposed to create incentive.
But when the distribution of wealth is irrational, unjust and even abusive, then it destroys incentive and creates social anger.
Capitalism by all means.
But regulated, controlled, and like a good warm fire, made into something beneficial- because a free market is like a fire set free. It burns and destroys.
secrets in symmetry
17-Jan-12, 23:32
We havent run a £150bn deficit since like 2001 for Fred Goodwin (knighted by bloody labour, ironic or what) to cavort into the sunset. We did it becuase people are a) unwiling to pay more tax and b) expect someone else to pay for services they consume yet barely scratch the surface on funding.Yes, it's true that we haven't run a £150bn deficit since 2001.
Weezy, I know you don't know any more basic economics than the typical checkout person at Lidl, but even you must know your claim about the deficit is rubbish.
There is an alternative, the Scottish Green Party believes that individuals should be rewarded for their enterprise and ingenuity.....but not at the risk of putting the workers that bring them their wealth into further poverty. That is why they propose to regulate pay so that executive pay is never ten times more than the lowest paid.
Weezer I think you are wrong in your assessment of those who dislike Cameron and his tory government as anti english - thats daft. As far as doing more for the man in the street - well they have closed nurseries and sure start centres, cut programmes that assist ex offenders, cut tax credits, are planning to unfairly cut child benefit, they have presided over cuts that are affecting the most vulnerable in society and are proposing changes which make no sense to people with disabilities and their payments. They may very well be raising the tax threshold but to say they are going to "do something" about executive pay whilst allowing millions of pounds of tax to be avoided by the super rich is smoke and mirrors if you ask me. I dont know about the car you drive or the 2 holidays a year you have but you obviously work hard to pay for what you have as do many other people. We manage and we could still manage without the tax threshold going and I for one would be glad to do so, if there was any element of fairness in the policies of the coalition.
As for Unions they have served a massively important role in history and you can mock the suggestion that you would be going up chimneys and the like but you surely cant argue that the workplace would be hugely different if it wasnt for unions. Equal pay, opportunities and maternity rights would have taken much much longer to arrive - the pay issue is STILL being fought. Racial equality legislation would maybe not have arrived when it did. The rights of workers not to be bashed down by unscrupulous bosses and the assistance in fighting a myriad of employment cases has been invaluable. If you found yourself on the wrong end of a grievance case or an unfair dismissal case you would be very grateful to have the union mannie in your corner. The days of "you cant get me IM part of the union" ( The strawbs 1973 if you are interested :Razz) might very well be over but they need to be and have always been to a greater or lesser degree the voice of the working man/woman. Where their influence is diminished they still have a welfare role, an educational role and they do tend to speak with the voice of their members. Ed Milliband ignores that at his cost if you ask me.
weezer 316
18-Jan-12, 12:33
Yes, it's true that we haven't run a £150bn deficit since 2001.
Weezy, I know you don't know any more basic economics than the typical checkout person at Lidl, but even you must know your claim about the deficit is rubbish.
No your right, it was 2002, and since then, until it started getting bananas in 2008/09 they ran a slightly bigger deficit than the tories during the ERM disaster for god sake, and that ruined the tories perception on economic matters for nearly 20 years, and rightly so!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#_
Stop trying to blame the rich. Stop trying to blame the system. Stop trying top blame every bloody banker, businessman and investor there is. There are cuts becuase the man and women of this country are simply not prepeared to pay for the bloody services they use and you lot know it, but most of you refuse to acknowldge it. Labour won on money it was going to borrow and had no plan to pay back. And now you lot bloody moan about cuts!
I have asked repeatedly what would you do to clsoe the deficit, I think only John has answered, and he was closer to cutting it out than me. So what would you do? And before You start whanging on about ax avoidance, its estimnated to only cost £25bn a year at most by the bloody TUC, so you still got £100bn or so to go.
There is an alternative, the Scottish Green Party believes that individuals should be rewarded for their enterprise and ingenuity.....but not at the risk of putting the workers that bring them their wealth into further poverty. That is why they propose to regulate pay so that executive pay is never ten times more than the lowest paid.
That policy is completely Barking. Do they seriously expect business to compete for talent with a £100,000 cap on pay.
Slight point of order but I'd say our economics is more state-sponsored-protectionist-corporatism as opposed capitalism, actual pure capitalism would be interesting to see how it works and if it would be viable. Anything has to be better than the back-slapping, nepotistic fest we have right now.
So it's okay to crack down on Unions to crush collective bargaining, but it's not okay to cap wages at a reasonable level? Ignoring the cap I'd do some sort of ratio stuff based on the lowest paid employee/contractor. I say this realising that a lot of Union management is just as corrupt as dodgy business leaders.
Stop trying to blame the rich. Stop trying to blame the system. Stop trying top blame every bloody banker, businessman and investor there is. There are cuts becuase the man and women of this country are simply not prepeared to pay for the bloody services they use and you lot know it, but most of you refuse to acknowldge it. Labour won on money it was going to borrow and had no plan to pay back. And now you lot bloody moan about cuts!
I have asked repeatedly what would you do to clsoe the deficit, I think only John has answered, and he was closer to cutting it out than me. So what would you do? And before You start whanging on about ax avoidance, its estimnated to only cost £25bn a year at most by the bloody TUC, so you still got £100bn or so to go.
Hmm whanging on??? and only 25billion???? First of all I have found varying figures for tax avoidance from 25billion - which appears to refer to the effect of closing the "tax haven loopholes" - but thats only a part of it. Estimates go as high as 100billion, the new statesman in November suggested a figure of 69.9bn. Vodafone is widely believed to have avoided a tax bill of 7bn - I have seen reports that they paid £1400 on profits of £3.5bn!!!!!!
Reports suggest that of the 700 top profit making companies in the UK 60% paid less than 10million in corporation tax and 30% paid nothing at all due to tax avoidance schemes. Dont forget that these companies are listed on the London stock exchange and access to capital and prestige as a result of this. This is as big a problem as the banks. The "rich" per se are not to blame but the greed of the "corporate rich" most certainly contributes. Tax avoidance may be legal but it is highly immoral in my opinion and - before the election - the opinion of the Lib-Dems.
If you add to this the fact that benefit fraud and errors in the benefit system is estimated to cost the government around £5bn (David Camerons own figures). The cost of Trident replacement, the cost of the rail link that the government committed itself to last week, all these are questionable in their necessity. A sort of "Nice to have but can do without for now". So I would scrap the nice to have stuff and the tax avoidance stuff. I would also increase the resource put into fraud detection for the welfare system which is woefully under resourced and has been since Thatcher government decimated the Fraud teams during the early 90s. I would focus on driving down official errors. We wont wipe Fraud and errors out completely but im sure it could be reduced with better resourcing.
I would put 1p on income tax for all basic rate income tax payers and 1.5pence for all higher rate tax payers. I would impose a "social levy" on utility company profits over a certain amout. ( I would really like to nationalise them lol but then that might not be very popular) I would also get rid of the Upper Earning Limit for National Insurance and NI would be paid at 12% on all earnings over the Lower earnings limit rather than as now where it is paid 12% up to around £900 per week and 2% after that.
Thats a start. It is not about bashing the rich but about creating fairness and ethical behaviour in the systems we have to fund the services we all use. The very well off may smart at the extra half a pence on their income tax but if you are a high earner then you should expect that you can contribute a little more. The NI changes may also sting a bit but thats about ironing out an inequality and not penalising high earners.
Slight point of order but I'd say our economics is more state-sponsored-protectionist-corporatism as opposed capitalism, actual pure capitalism would be interesting to see how it works and if it would be viable. Anything has to be better than the back-slapping, nepotistic fest we have right now.
So it's okay to crack down on Unions to crush collective bargaining, but it's not okay to cap wages at a reasonable level? Ignoring the cap I'd do some sort of ratio stuff based on the lowest paid employee/contractor. I say this realising that a lot of Union management is just as corrupt as dodgy business leaders.
Well, as long as Union bosses don't mind a substantial pay cut. :eek:
That policy is completely Barking. Do they seriously expect business to compete for talent with a £100,000 cap on pay.
£100,000 is good money in my book.
£100,000 is good money in my book.
To put it in perspective, most sales managers earn this kind of money. Many oil and energy specialists earn it, senior engineers, GPs, heads of department in the public sector. So senior private sector directors would expect a lot more.
You wouldn't get a mortgage on a not much above average price house on that.
To put it in perspective, most sales managers earn this kind of money. Many oil and energy specialists earn it, senior engineers, GPs, heads of department in the public sector. So senior private sector directors would expect a lot more.
You wouldn't get a mortgage on a not much above average price house on that.
It's either £100,000 for the few or pay cuts to the majority of voters.
I believe top executive pay used to be 10 times the average salary ,, ie £26000 = £260000 or theres about,, in the last 10 to 12 years it is more like 70 to 100 times the average salary,, that is some increase in a decade or so, and what for, running every western world country into the ground. when mr cameron brings it back to 10 times the average wage i may vote tory,,, but i think hell will freeze over first,,lol
It's either £100,000 for the few or pay cuts to the majority of voters.
That is the point, it is not the few it is the many. Outside Caithness and Sutherland there is a whole world. How do you think people buy half million pound houses (that is the starting price for anything with an acre of land in Cheshire for instance).
I don't object to curtailing the excesses of the very well off, but you would have to set it at a realistic level.
While we are on the subject, I believe that the minimum national wage actually depresses earnings and promotes poor performance. Employers will pay the min and think thats fine, and employees think min wage min effort (and why not). That's one thing the Unions have done for this country.
That's the thing, if there was a cap on exec wages then houses wouldn't cost millions of pounds in the first place or they wouldn't exist.
weezer 316
18-Jan-12, 18:25
Hmm whanging on??? and only 25billion???? First of all I have found varying figures for tax avoidance from 25billion - which appears to refer to the effect of closing the "tax haven loopholes" - but thats only a part of it. Estimates go as high as 100billion, the new statesman in November suggested a figure of 69.9bn. Vodafone is widely believed to have avoided a tax bill of 7bn - I have seen reports that they paid £1400 on profits of £3.5bn!!!!!!
Reports suggest that of the 700 top profit making companies in the UK 60% paid less than 10million in corporation tax and 30% paid nothing at all due to tax avoidance schemes. Dont forget that these companies are listed on the London stock exchange and access to capital and prestige as a result of this. This is as big a problem as the banks. The "rich" per se are not to blame but the greed of the "corporate rich" most certainly contributes. Tax avoidance may be legal but it is highly immoral in my opinion and - before the election - the opinion of the Lib-Dems.
If you add to this the fact that benefit fraud and errors in the benefit system is estimated to cost the government around £5bn (David Camerons own figures). The cost of Trident replacement, the cost of the rail link that the government committed itself to last week, all these are questionable in their necessity. A sort of "Nice to have but can do without for now". So I would scrap the nice to have stuff and the tax avoidance stuff. I would also increase the resource put into fraud detection for the welfare system which is woefully under resourced and has been since Thatcher government decimated the Fraud teams during the early 90s. I would focus on driving down official errors. We wont wipe Fraud and errors out completely but im sure it could be reduced with better resourcing.
I would put 1p on income tax for all basic rate income tax payers and 1.5pence for all higher rate tax payers. I would impose a "social levy" on utility company profits over a certain amout. ( I would really like to nationalise them lol but then that might not be very popular) I would also get rid of the Upper Earning Limit for National Insurance and NI would be paid at 12% on all earnings over the Lower earnings limit rather than as now where it is paid 12% up to around £900 per week and 2% after that.
Thats a start. It is not about bashing the rich but about creating fairness and ethical behaviour in the systems we have to fund the services we all use. The very well off may smart at the extra half a pence on their income tax but if you are a high earner then you should expect that you can contribute a little more. The NI changes may also sting a bit but thats about ironing out an inequality and not penalising high earners.
Right I am going to start with a negative. Your figures are utterly ludicrous. If it was £100bn your essentially saying 20% of the take take in the UK is missing. Those figures would shame greece never mind the UK. Its sensationalist and contributes nothing to a real problem. The TUC, and I have said this umpteen times, are not exactly a right wing organisation and their estimate is £25bn, here http://www.tuc.org.uk/touchstone/Missingbillions/1missingbillions.pdf
Now, as for your other points, some good ones. I agree with he tax raise, and the NI, as well as the faud detection. The rail link is a national investment between the two largest population centres in the UK so I woudl back it. Its not money just chucked down a hole.
I like RQ's idea for a fixed multiple of the lowest paid worker. That makes sense.
Right I am going to start with a negative. Your figures are utterly ludicrous. If it was £100bn your essentially saying 20% of the take take in the UK is missing. Those figures would shame greece never mind the UK. Its sensationalist and contributes nothing to a real problem. The TUC, and I have said this umpteen times, are not exactly a right wing organisation and their estimate is £25bn, here http://www.tuc.org.uk/touchstone/Missingbillions/1missingbillions.pdf
.
=
Sorry I didnt make myself clear, They are not MY figures lol. They are simply the range of figures that are available to illustrate that it is hard to get a handle on how much it is. I dont beleive its 100bn but i think it is in excess of the 26bn and I think the TUC suggest that there is indeed a further £8bn lost to the exchequer by tax planning for example. The fact is that those on low incomes cant indulge in tax planning in the same way that those earning high incomes can. The pamphlet talks about equity in the tax system and thats an important point to make.
billmoseley
18-Jan-12, 19:53
the unions at grass root level do a fantastic job. my last job i was deeply involved in union matters. it was with a nation wide company with many 1000s of employees. we were not at logger heads with management but work closely with them to improve our members working conditions and help improve profits. Most disputes were resolved with negotiation. so don't judge unions on the head lines you see in the media they really are working for the common working man
John Little
18-Jan-12, 20:19
Interesting news just now. Goldman Sachs profits are down. Their share price is down.
But they are about to pay huge bonuses.
The unions are going to stay quiet are they?
As I understand it in some scandinavian countries you have to be a member of a union, even management who have their own. The trouble with some unions - as with a lot of things - is an entrenched power structure. Plato has been spot on about that one since he said it.
secrets in symmetry
18-Jan-12, 22:29
No your right, it was 2002, and since then, until it started getting bananas in 2008/09 they ran a slightly bigger deficit than the tories during the ERM disaster for god sake, and that ruined the tories perception on economic matters for nearly 20 years, and rightly so!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#_
Weezy, what rubbish are you talking now? As the Guardian article shows, the deficit was £20bn in 2002, it rose to £68bn in 2008 and £152bn in 2009. This bears no resemblance to what you wrote above, and no resemblance to what you wrote in the first instance.
Your posts are becoming more and more outrageous, and more and more other worldish as time passes. I once thought you were someone with ambition who could think. I know you're a young laddie who doesn't have an in-depth knowledge or understanding of many things, but I seriously thought you had potential. Sadly, your recent posts have been inveterate rubbish. Why? What has happened to you?
I like RQ's idea for a fixed multiple of the lowest paid worker. That makes sense.It makes no sense whatsoever! In no field of activity should you ever deduce generalities or base policy on the tails of a distribution, whether that be wages, prices, business plans, analysis of data, etc. Making such a suggestion gives the game away - you simply don't get it.... I kinda expected it from RecQuery because he's a super geeky networking expert computer buff, and that's the sort of fantasy geekworld thing that super geeks come up with, but I'd hoped for more real-world ideas from you.
Come on Weezy, you can do better than this! Your County is counting on you! :cool:
That's all a bit personal! Better play that Joker!
...I kinda expected it from RecQuery because he's a super geeky networking expert computer buff, and that's the sort of fantasy geekworld thing that super geeks come up with, but I'd hoped for more real-world ideas from you.
I'm not denying it, though sometimes I prefer to be called a level 12 Paladin. It's only considered a fantasy because such people never been in power, the world is ran - perhaps manipulated would be a better word - by humanities and liberal arts people and they've done such a good job of it(!)
That's the thing, if there was a cap on exec wages then houses wouldn't cost millions of pounds in the first place or they wouldn't exist.
You are not listening. We are talking about the Scottish Green's 10x min wage for top executives. It is not enough, for the reasons above.
You are not listening. We are talking about the Scottish Green's 10x min wage for top executives. It is not enough, for the reasons above.
I'm happy for executives to receive pay that is 10X the average wage then.
secrets in symmetry
19-Jan-12, 22:00
I'm not denying it, though sometimes I prefer to be called a level 12 Paladin. It's only considered a fantasy because such people never been in power, the world is ran - perhaps manipulated would be a better word - by humanities and liberal arts people and they've done such a good job of it(!)Lol! You're even more of a geek than I thought you were! :cool:
The humanities and liberal arts people aren't the worst - that role is played by the lawyers and media magnates/stars in my opinion - although a certain history graduate from Magdalen College is top of my list of idiot politicians at the moment.
I do agree with your general thrust though. Think back to your liberal arts peers at university - could you imagine any of them running the civil service, running big business, or even running the country? Some of them probably are. Is that not scary?
Many of those in power are so non-technical and so innumerate that they do or say stupid things about the economy that scientific/technical/numerate people like ourselves can spot instantly.
secrets in symmetry
19-Jan-12, 22:16
I'm happy for executives to receive pay that is 10X the average wage then.That's better than ten times the lowest wage, partly because you're using the middle of the distribution to fix one of its tails - the head in this case lol - rather than the other way round. That's still bad in my opinion - but not so bad. The tail of any distribution generally consists of rare cases which aren't representative of very much. I'd prefer to aim for (rather than impose) a limit on the ratio of some high percentile (say 85% or 90%) to the median.
I suspect that the imposition of a maximum wage ratio would lead to a pileup of wages near the limit, and would lead to stagnation, inefficiency and a very inflexible labour market. But that's just a guess. Have the Greens done a careful analysis of the implications for the economy?
Someone has already suggested that the minimum wage has led to low pay for many jobs - because minimum wage is reluctantly accepted as being tolerable. I don't know how big that effect really is. There probably is an effect, but it has to be balanced against the gain that is the eradication of legal slave (or nearly slave) labour.
Anyone see the Green Party leader shoot herself in the foot and her party in the head over the Falklands on question time?
Anyone see the Green Party leader shoot herself in the foot and her party in the head over the Falklands on question time?
Shoot herself in the foot?
She said that the islanders should determine their own future and she also said that there should be increased dialogue with Argentina over the future of the Falklands. I can't see how that is any different from the existing position.
Shoot herself in the foot?
She said that the islanders should determine their own future and she also said that there should be increased dialogue with Argentina over the future of the Falklands. I can't see how that is any different from the existing position.
What she said was she couldn't understand why we would want to keep the Falklands and why the Islanders had a problem with being Argantinian. If you don't believe this is going to turn into a fight for survival of the Greens just wait a while.
Anyone who saw the programme couldn't help but be enraged by her dismissive attitude as well as her words.
A few years back, the Argentine Foreign Minister, then a Senor Guido de Tella, offered each and every Falkland Islander the sum of a million pounds per person if they would agree to the Argentines taking sovereignty over from the Brits - a clever move, as from Mrs T onwards the party line has always been that the UK will support the FI, so long as the Islanders wish to remain British . It is known that not one Falklander became a millionaire. Nor even thought of it. Had one of them even thought of it, he would have as like as not been locked up at the Police Station, which - really - in the Falklands is located in Letsby Avenue, for his own safety.
Falkland Islanders are a hardy breed, but they have good old fashioned manners, principles, and (sometimes, goodness knows why!) a continuing desire to continue their lifestyles under, but not below, the Union Jack. Would that others could recognise the gulf between service and servility.
As you may know, the squaddies dubbed them "Bennies" (Benny from Crossroads) on account of their woolly hats and their calm and measured diction.
Back in 1983, after the conflict, I remember walking along Ross Road in Stanley and seeing many a Falklands Land Rover with a bumper sticker reading -
"We're the Bennies - Outnumbered but not Outsmarted".
With people like that, you know you ain't dealing with idiots.
And they like the idea of staying British.
Clue?
That is why they propose to regulate pay so that executive pay is never ten times more than the lowest paid.
That policy is completely Barking.
Barking, complete cobblers and utterly unworkable. A proposal of yet even more red tape and gov't interference in the private sector.
Potentially you will have a Company Director who may well have invested thousands (tens of, hundreds of, maybe millions) and worked their nuts off for £42,000 a year.
Now if that isn't a better way of getting people to sign on the dole I don't know what is.
Nick Noble
20-Jan-12, 11:49
Barking, complete cobblers and utterly unworkable. A proposal of yet even more red tape and gov't interference in the private sector.
Potentially you will have a Company Director who may well have invested thousands (tens of, hundreds of, maybe millions) and worked their nuts off for £42,000 a year.
Now if that isn't a better way of getting people to sign on the dole I don't know what is.
Any company director who has invested that amount of money into any company without getting a good slice of the shares of the company is a fool. If they have a good shareholding and the business is doing well and making profits then they can be well rewarded through dividend payments. They should earn a salary commensurate with the work done, not on the basis of some theoretical level of investment.
Allocation of shares to directors bought in from outside would also be a more realistic method of reward than the telephone number "salary" currently being paid to many of them.
Dividend payments should be the reward for succesful business people, not hyper salaries and bonuses.
So a cap on salary is not an insurmountable problem, and don't forget that there is no suggestion of an absolute cap, just a multiple. If the business is doing well then a pay increase for the lowest paid workers would enable a rise in pay for the top earners. Seems pretty fair to me...
If they have a good shareholding and the business is doing well and making profits then they can be well rewarded through dividend payments. They should earn a salary commensurate with the work done, not on the basis of some theoretical level of investment.
Which is partly the reason it is cobblers.
There are many and various ways of 'paying' executives, generally speaking the non salary methods are often at a better tax break.
It'd the mindset of this country, rather than finding ways for everyone to earn a good living we are driven by jealousy into finding ways to stop a few people earn high wages.
Barking, complete cobblers and utterly unworkable. A proposal of yet even more red tape and gov't interference in the private sector.
Potentially you will have a Company Director who may well have invested thousands (tens of, hundreds of, maybe millions) and worked their nuts off for £42,000 a year.
Now if that isn't a better way of getting people to sign on the dole I don't know what is.
There's plenty suitably qualified on the dole who would work their nuts off for £42,000.
What she said was she couldn't understand why we would want to keep the Falklands and why the Islanders had a problem with being Argantinian. If you don't believe this is going to turn into a fight for survival of the Greens just wait a while.
Anyone who saw the programme couldn't help but be enraged by her dismissive attitude as well as her words.
She was expressing her own personal opinion as an aside to her main political assertion that the islanders should have the right to determine their own future and that there should be more dialogue between the islanders, the UK Governmant and the Argentines to enable them to make a better choice.
I was surprised to hear that Simon Weston was basically saying the same thing this morning. I thought he was one of the British at all costs sort of bloke given his history with the islands.
All I can find about Carline Lucas Green MP is this:
"in principle I/we (the greens) believe it in right of people self determination however it makes no sense to me that's somewhere on the other side of the world would be a British dependency in this day and age and these people would want to be British, it appears to be part of a colonial past, and I thought we were passed that sort of thing in these days, and the islands should be "returned" to the argentine, and the islanders should be made to see sense."
Is this what she said?
There's plenty suitably qualified on the dole who would work their nuts off for £42,000.
I work my nuts off for far less than £42k!
All I can find about Carline Lucas Green MP is this:
"in principle I/we (the greens) believe it in right of people self determination however it makes no sense to me that's somewhere on the other side of the world would be a British dependency in this day and age and these people would want to be British, it appears to be part of a colonial past, and I thought we were passed that sort of thing in these days, and the islands should be "returned" to the argentine, and the islanders should be made to see sense."
Is this what she said?
No, that was very poorly paraphrased.
@31:12
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01b3cdw/Question_Time_19_01_2012/
Don't agree with you Rheghead, listened all the way from 32.17 / 36.16, and I believe the Question Time quote was in essence correct. Of course with yourself being a Green, your comment was expected. It was good to see cross-party support for the Falklanders which was echoed by the mainstream audience.
Incidentally I've looked at the Green Party website and it seems 4x4's are a big no no with them, not sure if you were aware?...
But going back to this particular Thread, In the 70s & 80's being a member of the Fire Brigades Union we could pay a political levy which went to the Labour Party (The FBU is no longer affiliated to the Labour Party so there is no longer a payment). But at that time I duplicated a form which enabled me to cease paying my political levy, I believe there was not one of the fire-fighters who did not sign it.
That was the animosity against Labour at that time.
But going back to this particular Thread, In the 70s & 80's being a member of the Fire Brigades Union we could pay a political levy which went to the Labour Party (The FBU is no longer affiliated to the Labour Party so there is no longer a payment). But at that time I duplicated a form which enabled me to cease paying my political levy, I believe there was not one of the fire-fighters who did not sign it.
That was the animosity against Labour at that time.
I thought the Fire Brigade Union is affiliated with the Green Party now?
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2011/05/fire-brigades-union-funds-green-party-msps-campaign/
I thought the Fire Brigade Union is affiliated with the Green Party now?
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2011/05/fire-brigades-union-funds-green-party-msps-campaign/I would not call that 'affiliated' - the politics of the FBU were always left wing - why dear boy I understand on this very Org there are folks with relations who left the Fire Service because of their Political infighting.?. so would not take too much comfort from a five hundred quid grant.They have always supported irrelevant campaigns.
Matt Wrack the present general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) is far left-wing, and was involved in the Socialist Party and Militant Tendency, he writes often in the Morning Star, and I understand that the Palestinians are now the favour of the month.
I left the Fire Service 25 years ago - and wrote many articles in 'Firefighter Magazine' ref the stance of the Union at that time - the FBU seems not to have changed ..
Oh Yes Rheghead, why no mention of your Green Party's stance on 4x4's? Do tell
I have no comment on the Green Party's stance on 4X4s because I agree with their stance on 4X4s.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.