Bob Crow

bompington

nathancom wrote:

1) win a war against an invading army

That's funny, a few posts ago it was her that started the war.


But seriously, where does this idea come from that "the rich" are some sort of homogeneous, united group engaged in a big conspiracy to keep "the poor" down? Yup, it's good old-fashioned political tribalism again. If only I could work out which group I belonged in.

nathancom

bompington wrote:

nathancom wrote:

1) win a war against an invading army

That's funny, a few posts ago it was her that started the war.


But seriously, where does this idea come from that "the rich" are some sort of homogeneous, united group engaged in a big conspiracy to keep "the poor" down? Yup, it's good old-fashioned political tribalism again. If only I could work out which group I belonged in.

I never said she started the war. You are mistaking me for another poster. Somewhat ironic after your attack on tribalism...

Stevo_666

nathancom wrote:

bompington wrote:

I think there is a pretty strong case that "working class Britain", whatever that is, has suffered far more from the blindly futile acts of union leaders than it ever did from Thatcher or any other prime minister. (Nathancom - your blind tribalistic hatred belongs entirely with their mindset)

Even Crow's much vaunted "success" has surely only hastened the day when driverless trains (I reckon any tech-savvy 15yo with a Raspberry Pi could set one up without too much hassle) take over: was his strategy really just to milk it while he could, in the full knowledge that it couldn't possibly last long?

You think there isn't a constant war being waged by the rich on the poor? You are either rich or blind. There are too few people like Bob Crow who are willing to take the fight to the rich as they double their salaries and suck wealth out of companies.

Bob Crow earned £145k a year - surely that makes him one of the 'hated rich' - who sucks wealth out of the transport network and forces ordinary people to pay more for their tickets

If I remember rightly he was on the beach in Rio when the strike broke...lefty hypocrisy of the highest order.

bompington

nathancom wrote:

bompington wrote:

nathancom wrote:

1) win a war against an invading army

That's funny, a few posts ago it was her that started the war.


But seriously, where does this idea come from that "the rich" are some sort of homogeneous, united group engaged in a big conspiracy to keep "the poor" down? Yup, it's good old-fashioned political tribalism again. If only I could work out which group I belonged in.

I never said she started the war. You are mistaking me for another poster. Somewhat ironic after your attack on tribalism...

Beg pardon. All you poor people look the same to me.

nathancom

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

bompington wrote:

I think there is a pretty strong case that "working class Britain", whatever that is, has suffered far more from the blindly futile acts of union leaders than it ever did from Thatcher or any other prime minister. (Nathancom - your blind tribalistic hatred belongs entirely with their mindset)

Even Crow's much vaunted "success" has surely only hastened the day when driverless trains (I reckon any tech-savvy 15yo with a Raspberry Pi could set one up without too much hassle) take over: was his strategy really just to milk it while he could, in the full knowledge that it couldn't possibly last long?

You think there isn't a constant war being waged by the rich on the poor? You are either rich or blind. There are too few people like Bob Crow who are willing to take the fight to the rich as they double their salaries and suck wealth out of companies.

Bob Crow earned £145k a year - surely that makes him one of the 'hated rich' - who sucks wealth out of the transport network and forces ordinary people to pay more for their tickets

If I remember rightly he was on the beach in Rio when the strike broke...lefty hypocrisy of the highest order.

So only right wing people are morally allowed to book plane tickets and lay on a beach now apparently.

mamba80

nathancom wrote:

I never said she started the war. You are mistaking me for another poster. Somewhat ironic after your attack on tribalism...

I said it and I believe it, she sunk the Belgrano because she was terrified of a peaceful negotiation that would leave her poll ratings still in the dust, she was at the time the most unpopular PM of modern times.

that ship, a ww2 battle cruiser, went down with 100s of young conscripts on it, what then followed was war, before that, an invasion, which I believe had zero deaths.
The brits sunk the ship, using an exclusion zone un heard of in maritime law, change rules of engagement to sink it, as it was outside the zone at the time and 100s of miles away from uk fleet, sure thatcher hide behind this enquiry or that but as we ve seen from Stephen Lawrence and other such like, that is not difficult.

We have all got up in arms about the Crimea and Ruskie involvement but its all ok when we are the ones doing the killing for our own ends for land 1000s of miles away.

Crow was right when he said he hoped she would rot in hell.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

I never said she started the war. You are mistaking me for another poster. Somewhat ironic after your attack on tribalism...

I said it and I believe it, she sunk the Belgrano because she was terrified of a peaceful negotiation that would leave her poll ratings still in the dust, she was at the time the most unpopular PM of modern times.

that ship, a ww2 battle cruiser, went down with 100s of young conscripts on it, what then followed was war, before that, an invasion, which I believe had zero deaths.
The brits sunk the ship, using an exclusion zone un heard of in maritime law, change rules of engagement to sink it, as it was outside the zone at the time and 100s of miles away from uk fleet, sure thatcher hide behind this enquiry or that but as we ve seen from Stephen Lawrence and other such like, that is not difficult.

We have all got up in arms about the Crimea and Ruskie involvement but its all ok when we are the ones doing the killing for our own ends for land 1000s of miles away.

Crow was right when he said he hoped she would rot in hell.

The Belgrano was sunk because Argentina invaded another country and refused to leave. The loss of life was entirely due to the Argentinians refusing to leave and totally underestimating British resolve.
The Belgrano was a powerful, albeit old battleship, and wasn't there on a humanitarian mission was it. After it was sunk, the argentinian navy never put to sea. Argentina had been given every opportunity to leave The Falklands but chose not to.
If you choose to believe that Thatcher engineered a war, that apparently no-one saw coming, including the Foreign Secretary, Peter Carrington who resigned, then carry on. I'm sure nothing would shake you of your entrenched views.

ballysmate

nathancom wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

bompington wrote:

I think there is a pretty strong case that "working class Britain", whatever that is, has suffered far more from the blindly futile acts of union leaders than it ever did from Thatcher or any other prime minister. (Nathancom - your blind tribalistic hatred belongs entirely with their mindset)

Even Crow's much vaunted "success" has surely only hastened the day when driverless trains (I reckon any tech-savvy 15yo with a Raspberry Pi could set one up without too much hassle) take over: was his strategy really just to milk it while he could, in the full knowledge that it couldn't possibly last long?

You think there isn't a constant war being waged by the rich on the poor? You are either rich or blind. There are too few people like Bob Crow who are willing to take the fight to the rich as they double their salaries and suck wealth out of companies.

Bob Crow earned £145k a year - surely that makes him one of the 'hated rich' - who sucks wealth out of the transport network and forces ordinary people to pay more for their tickets

If I remember rightly he was on the beach in Rio when the strike broke...lefty hypocrisy of the highest order.

So only right wing people are morally allowed to book plane tickets and lay on a beach now apparently.

No-one has suggested this at all. Someone has just drawn your attention of the irony of a doyen of the Left enjoying the wealth and trappings of those 'fat cats' he and you seem to despise.

florerider

at least he didn't buy his council house, thus depriving some poor person of the chance of living in it. :?

Stevo_666

florerider wrote:

at least he didn't buy his council house, thus depriving some poor person of the chance of living in it. :?

Look on the bright side, someone more deserving might get that council house now.

nathancom

Well you can't say he didn't bring people together, we have a full on Tory circlejerk here.

So anyone going on holiday is now a traitor to the left-wing cause? Try harder.

cornerblock

Ballysmate wrote:

nathancom wrote:

So only right wing people are morally allowed to book plane tickets and lay on a beach now apparently.

No-one has suggested this at all. Someone has just drawn your attention of the irony of a doyen of the Left enjoying the wealth and trappings of those 'fat cats' he and you seem to despise.

I fail to see anything ironic or hypocritical about someone choosing to holiday in Brazil. I could afford a holiday in Brazil but I'm certainly no 'fat cat'. Exactly what kind of holiday and to where should a person who is left wing have to go on? This was just a load of old bollocks stirred up by the right wing press such as the Daily Mail to taint the man because they disagreed with him. And anyone who actually goes along with it is gullible and easily manipulated. It's 2014 ffs, most working people on a half decent salary can afford to holiday on the other side of the world now. Wealth and trappings? Do me a favour!

The only ironic thing about Bob Crow's holiday in Brazil was I believe the fact he booked it through the Daily Mail!

People may have disagreed with his politics but things like this are just nonsense.

Frank the tank

As you said in your first post on this thread "nathancom" He stood up for the members of the union and worked for their benefit. They elected him and paid his wages. The members got better wages and T&Cs. That was Crows job.

It's a shame there is no one in parliament doing the same for working masses who voted for them.

ballysmate

nathancom wrote:

Well you can't say he didn't bring people together, we have a full on Tory circlejerk here.

So anyone going on holiday is now a traitor to the left-wing cause? Try harder.

Assuming I am a member of the Tory circlejerk (Classy as always eh?), I don't have a problem with anyone going on holiday, to whatever exotic destination. I don't have a problem with anyone earning 145k, good luck to 'em. If Crow's employer, the RMT saw fit to pay him such a salary, it is/was between them and Crow.
Could you please extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population to spend their hard earned money how they see fit without feeling guilty?
If a manager on Network Rail or a company such as Tesco or Eon was paid such a salary, you would no doubt despise them as a 'fat cat' exploiting the poor downtrodden workforce. Why the exemption for Crow and other Left wingers?


'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

Indeed.

bdu98252

Good news for the members of the union is that with Bob Crow on £145k a year and in a final salary pension they will pay for a long time after in the transfer of that pension to his partner unless he is a retard and did not fill the paperwork in correctly to make her the beneficiary. £145k for a union leader and £60k for a train driver in an automated cab. Awesome whilst you can get it. I would say that this is inline with the perceived Tory mind set.

Did good old Bob ever explain why he is worth around 2.5 train drivers in salary. Not very Union that is it? Or was he just doing it because all his peers were getting that kind of cash. Bit like bankers.

mamba80

Eon, Tesco's etc pay their top staff far far in excess of 145k, Crow got no bonus share scheme or anything else of the ilk and he would have been on PAYE, so over 1/2 would have gone in tax and NI, unlike these CEO's who manage to pay proportionally less tax than their lowest paid staff.
store check out or branch bank staff earn many times less than the CEO of any of these companies, just google directors pay rises, sobering considering we ve just been through the biggest slump in peacetime.

anyone who thinks his pay is on par with a banker is living in never never land.

though they possible own the resort Crow stayed in

cornerblock

bdu98252 wrote:

Good news for the members of the union is that with Bob Crow on £145k a year and in a final salary pension they will pay for a long time after in the transfer of that pension to his partner unless he is a retard and did not fill the paperwork in correctly to make her the beneficiary. £145k for a union leader and £60k for a train driver in an automated cab. Awesome whilst you can get it. I would say that this is inline with the perceived Tory mind set.

Did good old Bob ever explain why he is worth around 2.5 train drivers in salary. Not very Union that is it? Or was he just doing it because all his peers were getting that kind of cash. Bit like bankers.

You sound a bit envious. So what if they were on 60k a year. Was Bob Crow any different to a well rewarded CEO who might recieve millions in pay for reaping great rewards for shareholders, who do a lot less than driving an tube all day. Seems it's alright for some to make a good living but not others. I'd say as leader of a union that had actually increased it's membership, and regardless of whether you agreed with him or not, always did well for his members he was worth every penny of his salary. Certainly those that paid his wages thought so.

mr_goo

1. Bob Crow was a good servant to his members, ensuring that their pay and working conditions were improved.
2. There is no doubt that he upset many Londoners and commuters in achieving his aims.
3. Left of Right he was entitled to go on holiday wherever he chose.
4. After Churchill, Thatcher is the best leader the UK has had in the last century.
5. Thatcher took on the unions that were dragging the UK down in to the proverbial.
6. There is no doubt that Thatcher changed many peoples lives during her term. Some for the best (Right to Buy). Some for the worst (Closure of pits and the decimation of mining communities)
7. In closing the pits, she should have put in place a plan to transform the mining communities and not cut them adrift.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Eon, Tesco's etc pay their top staff far far in excess of 145k, Crow got no bonus share scheme or anything else of the ilk and he would have been on PAYE, so over 1/2 would have gone in tax and NI, unlike these CEO's who manage to pay proportionally less tax than their lowest paid staff.
store check out or branch bank staff earn many times less than the CEO of any of these companies, just google directors pay rises, sobering considering we ve just been through the biggest slump in peacetime.

anyone who thinks his pay is on par with a banker is living in never never land.

though they possible own the resort Crow stayed in

Never said he was on par with a banker and am fully aware that there are a lot of execs on higher salaries. But 145k is not a bad screw is it? Certainly a lot more than anyone I know can hope to earn. But as I said earlier, I have no problem with anyone squeezing the last available penny from an employer.
Can I infer from your post that you do not oppose high salaries for CEOs etc as long as it is paid through PAYE?

Bobbinogs

Mr Goo wrote:

1. Bob Crow was a good servant to his members, ensuring that their pay and working conditions were improved.
2. There is no doubt that he upset many Londoners and commuters in achieving his aims.
3. Left of Right he was entitled to go on holiday wherever he chose.
4. After Churchill, Thatcher is the best leader the UK has had in the last century.
5. Thatcher took on the unions that were dragging the UK down in to the proverbial.
6. There is no doubt that Thatcher changed many peoples lives during her term. Some for the best (Right to Buy). Some for the worst (Closure of pits and the decimation of mining communities)
7. In closing the pits, she should have put in place a plan to transform the mining communities and not cut them adrift.

Ermm, this forum has no place for those who post well rounded, intelligent and reasoned points. We are all supposed to take an extremist stance and stick to it, even in the face of overwhelming logic to the opposite, jeesh!

markos1963

I have to laugh at the people bemoaning how much Bob earned or how much Drivers earn yet they support, I presume, their beloved 'free market economy' that their heroine Thatcher championed. All he did and they do is use that system to the fullest to get what they wanted. You want a service? From a limited supply of skilled workers? Then the market rate for that is...pay up time.
Bob was many things and I didn't always agree with him, I belong to a different railway union, but he wasn't a hypocrite. He disagreed with 'New' Labour and withdrew his support. He believed in his membership and did everything in his power to help them. Our pay and conditions ARE to be envied and why not? If you want the same then get yourself organised, vocal and loyal to your fellow workers.
He deserved his money because he got the results, I don't think £145k is a vast amount anyway in comparison to other senior positions. Brazil for a holiday? Good luck to him, my dad was an engineer and managed to go there four times so why shouldn't he?
I bet even as we type the Daily Mail are trying to find out the cost of his coffin!

RIP Bob Crow, a man of principle

ballysmate

markos1963 wrote:

I have to laugh at the people bemoaning how much Bob earned or how much Drivers earn yet they support, I presume, their beloved 'free market economy' that their heroine Thatcher championed. All he did and they do is use that system to the fullest to get what they wanted. You want a service? From a limited supply of skilled workers? Then the market rate for that is...pay up time.
Bob was many things and I didn't always agree with him, I belong to a different railway union, but he wasn't a hypocrite. He disagreed with 'New' Labour and withdrew his support. He believed in his membership and did everything in his power to help them. Our pay and conditions ARE to be envied and why not? If you want the same then get yourself organised, vocal and loyal to your fellow workers.
He deserved his money because he got the results, I don't think £145k is a vast amount anyway in comparison to other senior positions. Brazil for a holiday? Good luck to him, my dad was an engineer and managed to go there four times so why shouldn't he?
I bet even as we type the Daily Mail are trying to find out the cost of his coffin!

RIP Bob Crow, a man of principle

I have stated on here that he was good at his job and should be respected for that. I have also stated that I have no problem with him earning whatever salary he could squeeze out of the RMT.
All I have argued is that it is hypocritical to pillory others for doing the same, because they come from the other side of the political divide.

ballysmate

Mr Goo wrote:

1. Bob Crow was a good servant to his members, ensuring that their pay and working conditions were improved.
2. There is no doubt that he upset many Londoners and commuters in achieving his aims.
3. Left of Right he was entitled to go on holiday wherever he chose.
4. After Churchill, Thatcher is the best leader the UK has had in the last century.
5. Thatcher took on the unions that were dragging the UK down in to the proverbial.
6. There is no doubt that Thatcher changed many peoples lives during her term. Some for the best (Right to Buy). Some for the worst (Closure of pits and the decimation of mining communities)
7. In closing the pits, she should have put in place a plan to transform the mining communities and not cut them adrift.

Points 1 -5 totally agree.
As regards the pits, the mining industry was pricing itself out of the market. A surplus of expensive coal being produced that no-one wanted.


EDIT: Goo, what happened to Rainbow Rising?

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Never said he was on par with a banker and am fully aware that there are a lot of execs on higher salaries. But 145k is not a bad screw is it? Certainly a lot more than anyone I know can hope to earn. But as I said earlier, I have no problem with anyone squeezing the last available penny from an employer.
Can I infer from your post that you do not oppose high salaries for CEOs etc as long as it is paid through PAYE?

absolutely, PAYE for everyone, if the avg working man cant go off shore, get tax free LTIP than why should the very wealthy?
a progressive tax system would put their PAYE @ say 60%, obviously they would put up the salaries but that doesn't matter, the state would just more tax.
These guys wouldn't leave the uk, they have lives here, schools and culture to enjoy, the world isn't full of Swedes and Norwegians fleeing high taxes.

Bob Crows 145k its not so much as I said he would maybe take home 65 to 70k a lot less than say a CEO of a council would get and on par with head of a large comp school.
I used to earn about 60k and my partner, at the time, was on 70k, I have to say it gives a great living BUT we paid all our tax, she was an accountant and there are no loop holes for us.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Never said he was on par with a banker and am fully aware that there are a lot of execs on higher salaries. But 145k is not a bad screw is it? Certainly a lot more than anyone I know can hope to earn. But as I said earlier, I have no problem with anyone squeezing the last available penny from an employer.
Can I infer from your post that you do not oppose high salaries for CEOs etc as long as it is paid through PAYE?

absolutely, PAYE for everyone, if the avg working man cant go off shore, get tax free LTIP than why should the very wealthy?
a progressive tax system would put their PAYE @ say 60%, obviously they would put up the salaries but that doesn't matter, the state would just more tax.
These guys wouldn't leave the uk, they have lives here, schools and culture to enjoy, the world isn't full of Swedes and Norwegians fleeing high taxes.

Bob Crows 145k its not so much as I said he would maybe take home 65 to 70k a lot less than say a CEO of a council would get and on par with head of a large comp school.
I used to earn about 60k and my partner, at the time, was on 70k, I have to say it gives a great living BUT we paid all our tax, she was an accountant and there are no loop holes for us.

I have always maintained that no-one should shirk their tax burden. I have never earned the sort of salary you refer to, but that's life.
The problem I would see if you imposed such a punitive tax rate is high earners would negotiate their salaries 'net'. The only example I can think of off the top of my head was I think Ruud Gullitt when he was linked to, I think Chelsea? He wasn't interested in what his gross would be, he wanted to know what he would get 'net' in Euros, taking into account tax and exchange rates.
The same surely would apply to other high earners. ie What is my bottom line? In this way, would salaries for the highest earners invariably have to rise?

PS If it wasn't Ruud and he is an avid cyclist logging on here, I apologise.

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

1. Bob Crow was a good servant to his members, ensuring that their pay and working conditions were improved.
2. There is no doubt that he upset many Londoners and commuters in achieving his aims.
3. Left of Right he was entitled to go on holiday wherever he chose.
4. After Churchill, Thatcher is the best leader the UK has had in the last century.
5. Thatcher took on the unions that were dragging the UK down in to the proverbial.
6. There is no doubt that Thatcher changed many peoples lives during her term. Some for the best (Right to Buy). Some for the worst (Closure of pits and the decimation of mining communities)
7. In closing the pits, she should have put in place a plan to transform the mining communities and not cut them adrift.

Points 1 -5 totally agree.
As regards the pits, the mining industry was pricing itself out of the market. A surplus of expensive coal being produced that no-one wanted.


EDIT: Goo, what happened to Rainbow Rising?

You don't agree then that the Cons government should have assisted the old mining communities? I remember driving through one in Nottinghamshire about 15+ years ago. Sometime after the closures and the place looked desperate. Only thing it had going for it was a small Coop Supermarket ( though that might not be around much longer)

EDIT: Rising retired. The person in new avatar and I share same first name. Can you guess who it is yet?

nathancom

Is it mark twain?

finchy

Mr Goo wrote:

4. After Churchill, Thatcher is the best leader the UK has had in the last century.
5. Thatcher took on the unions that were dragging the UK down in to the proverbial.
6. There is no doubt that Thatcher changed many peoples lives during her term. Some for the best (Right to Buy). Some for the worst (Closure of pits and the decimation of mining communities)
7. In closing the pits, she should have put in place a plan to transform the mining communities and not cut them adrift.

4. How do you decide that? They all had different challenges. 1940s and 50s they had to rebuild a country following a war. 50s and 60s they were dealing with the loss of the Empire. 70s it was the oil crisis.
5. Industrial relations needed to be reformed, but not in the way that happened in Britain. Unions are far more powerful in other northern European countries than the UK, and their economies are doing better than ours.
6. Right to buy is probably the most damaging policy of Thatcher's era. The lack of social housing is a MASSIVE problem in the UK now and the fact that councils can't offer cheap housing means that landlords can charge exorbitant rents for some of the worst accommodation in Europe.
7. Probably right, but the question is how do you replace a place of work that might have supported an entire community? As you can probably guess I'm not a fan of the woman, but I don't know what could have been done and whether such schemes have been implemented successfully in other parts of the world. If you know of any good examples, please suggest them, I'd be interested to read about how communities can survive such massive losses.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

I have always maintained that no-one should shirk their tax burden. I have never earned the sort of salary you refer to, but that's life.
The problem I would see if you imposed such a punitive tax rate is high earners would negotiate their salaries 'net'. The only example I can think of off the top of my head was I think Ruud Gullitt when he was linked to, I think Chelsea? He wasn't interested in what his gross would be, he wanted to know what he would get 'net' in Euros, taking into account tax and exchange rates.
The same surely would apply to other high earners. ie What is my bottom line? In this way, would salaries for the highest earners invariably have to rise?

PS If it wasn't Ruud and he is an avid cyclist logging on here, I apologise.

Doesn't matter what people get net, with a fair system, super high salaries get taxed and that benefits us all, or it does in my utopian world

nathancom

Considering all the capital she released - privatisations, right to buy, North Sea oil revenues, deregulation of the city (that ended well), there is remarkably little positive legacy of that time, no dramatic improvement of the country's infrastructure, housing, public services. Nothing really. She did cut taxes a lot to win votes but the money could have been ploughed back into the country instead of allowing our nation to fall further behind.