Join the Labour Party and save your country!

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

Actually the £239k figure was from a press release from the union concerned to correct a newspaper article. Just think how bad the newspaper figure must have been for the union to think over £200k sounded better!

One way i look at pay is partly related to how many depend on the boss's good decisions. For example a constituency MP is responsible for representing say 55k earns £75k. The chancellor is responsible for the government financial policy for the whole nation so may get £145k (my guess). So a union boss representing the interests of 1.1 million members (is that the size of unite) would be somewhere between the constituency MP and the chancellor IMHO. My issue is he's nearer the chancellor's pay than in think he should be.

Council leaders getting £250k or indeed more than the chancellor is disgusting. The only trouble is pointing out one disgusting case of overpaying a civil servant doesn't mean the case of overpaid union bosses can be forgotten or ignored. Finding a worse case doesn't make other cases ok. If anything union bosses representing their members often claim a higher moral purpose so their greed could be said to be worse. Just a thought. Claiming a moral high ground means they need to apply it to all aspects.

the point i ve made is that union members can do something about it, resign their membership in complaint, this cannot be done in a council, as ALL leaders award themselves these salaries, not voting makes zero difference too because few do already, i do agree union bosses are over paid but its not tax payers money is it?

As are the NHS CEO's who have cowed towed to this Government and are now reaping the whirlwind, this is a golden op for Labour, we all need the NHS and we all pay into it, it is now unsafe and clearly under funded, this could bring down the Government IF Labour get their act together, it takes years to run down the NHS and years to bring it up again.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

i do agree union bosses are over paid but its not tax payers money is it?

So why do you object to highly paid business leaders who do not work in the public sector?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

paying Market rate is a bit like "these people should pay their fair taxes" its all in the eye of the beholder!

the min wage has obv raised the market rate yet still our eco has grown, so clearly businesses can pay more than the so called market rate - but blanket increases in min wage as you implied, are not fair on new/small businesses, a more imaginative solution is needed - regional based or on taxable profit?

Corbyn clearly had an excellent op to put Labours vision to the public and messed it up, its not that i disagree with him so much, its that he cant lead from the front, same with BJ, at least he realised it and withdrew.

No, market rate is the price agreed between willing buyer and seller. It is effectively self defining and dependent on specifics. There is no morality in it such as the concept of what is fair.

You cant make sweeping statements that all business can afford to pay more - again it is down to specific circumstances. The market rate for the job is still very relevant here as well.

i didnt, i agreed with you that increases in min wage across the board are clearly unfair on small/new businesses, as you said, it comes down to specific industries.

unfortunately the balance of power in any neg is with the employer in un skilled work, sure me an you can negotiate pay to some extent, but many cannot and thats where the problem is most apparent.

That's what the minimum wage is there for.

However it is a balancing act. Set the min wage too high and you will discourage employers from hiring. Secondly it will discourage employees from upskilling - why bother acquiring a skill etc if you can get a very generous minimum wage in any event.

rick_chasey

It's ludicrous to think that anything other than a tiny minority wants a nationwide pay cap.

I mean, beyond all the talent you'd lose (just think how the premier league would be gutted, for a more high profile example), I don't think there are many people who would forgo the chance to earn a lot.

It's one thing looking at wealth inequality and the broader societal costs that big gaps tend to create, but that is beyond ludicrous.

Ironically, some study looked the performance of firms against their internal wage gap, and those who had the bigger wage gaps performed better.

Then again, you also get studies that say that paying mega bucks for a CEO doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i do agree union bosses are over paid but its not tax payers money is it?

So why do you object to highly paid business leaders who do not work in the public sector?

i m tired at mo but where did i say that?

mmm this is what i said and then you agreed with me...catchup!!!! early onset???

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Of course people should be free to earn whatever they like, via their own hard enterprise but that also inc the responsibility to pay their taxes and for the Gov to make sure they do pay what is owed, rather that what is "fair".

Agree with you on your last paragraph :shock:

I don't see how it is fair on the many small businesses who have to work hard to make a profit to pay more than the market rate. It's a market for jobs and supply and demand applies above the legal minimum. If you want to earn more, do something about it rather than expecting someone else to just give it you. Thats one of the big problems for current day UK, the sense of entitlement.

Stevo_666

If you don't recall moaning about the pay of top FTSE Execs several times then you've got early onset How about this for starters:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13041421&hilit=Ftse&start=120
It used to be one of your favourite hobby horses.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

If you don't recall moaning about the pay of top FTSE Execs several times then you've got early onset How about this for starters:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13041421&hilit=Ftse&start=120
It used to be one of your favourite hobby horses.

they were lies, fake news, fake news folks, invented by my enemies and no, i wont be taking questions from you......

but as i said, its down to Gov to enforce tax collection and if they do that, then there is no issue as we both agreed

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

yes for me an you, easy to say politics of envy but for the people claiming working benefits despite working a 40hr week.... people are getting pe d off being told be grateful you ve a job etc for them its not a red herring and if we go one ignoring it, we ll end up with more Trumps and Brexits.

May says she recognises this too, though whether she ll do anything about it is another matter.

Of course people should be free to earn whatever they like, via their own hard enterprise but that also inc the responsibility to pay their taxes and for the Gov to make sure they do pay what is owed, rather that what is "fair".

Agree with you on your last paragraph :shock:

Here's what I agreed with...not quite what you are saying now.

bobmcstuff

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ironically, some study looked the performance of firms against their internal wage gap, and those who had the bigger wage gaps performed better.

You'll need to show some evidence for that - as all the articles I've seen (mostly on the FT so hardly a bastion of socialism) seem to show that extremely high CEO salaries are not associated with better company performance (e.g., https://www.ft.com/content/abc7085e-c85 ... 34c07b46ef, "The correlation between high executive pay and good performance is “negligible”, a new academic study has found" and https://www.ft.com/content/334f4402-cdd ... dcb35cede2 "What is beyond doubt is that boardroom remuneration has nothing to do with performance. That may be because remuneration committees are measuring the wrong things. Or it may be because the whole concept of performance-related pay — expressed in the UK via long-term incentive plans — is flawed.").

In order not to incur the wrath of Stevo I have nothing against companies paying CEOs as is appropriate, however recently CEO salaries have increased a lot (by 1/3 since 2010 https://www.ft.com/content/12f119f4-d7f ... eb37a6aa8e) and the multiple between median earnings and CEO earnings has been growing very fast. However I don't think that government should be putting in a salary cap - It's a matter for the shareholders (and to be fair there is much more sharedholder fuss about high pay packaged these days). FT reporters seem to think better transparency and reporting of executive pay ratios might help.

Incidentally overall income inequality has been falling the last few years, not rising as is public perception (and mine until recently).

Stevo_666

No wrath. But I can't read the FT links.

As you say its a matter for the shareholders. There is more shareholder activity on exec pay these days from what I have seen.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's ludicrous to think that anything other than a tiny minority wants a nationwide pay cap.

I mean, beyond all the talent you'd lose (just think how the premier league would be gutted, for a more high profile example), I don't think there are many people who would forgo the chance to earn a lot.

It's one thing looking at wealth inequality and the broader societal costs that big gaps tend to create, but that is beyond ludicrous.

Ironically, some study looked the performance of firms against their internal wage gap, and those who had the bigger wage gaps performed better.

Then again, you also get studies that say that paying mega bucks for a CEO doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

I can't disagree with that. I'm sure there will be evidence going both ways on the gap question.

Corbyn has backtracked very quickly to the pay ratio proposal, but even that has its issues.

mamba80

Pay gap is a side issue Steve, corbyn was an idiot to even mention it.
a while back i suggested a tax rise to fund the NHS, poo hoo ed by your self, last night a former Tory health minister has suggested exactly this.... the alternative is an nhs which is no longer free at the point of use ie going down the dental and eye routes.

Mays response is derisory to say the least, when you ve people dying IN hospital due to lack of care, something is very clearly wrong, we spend much less than many european counter parts.
My mum was in hospital with a stroke over the Summer, a: hospitals seem to be staffed entirely by eu citizens b: there is not enough staff to ensure she didnt lay in her own shitte and p1ss for hours on end and c: no community care in place... bed blocking.
initiatives on public health are very weak and we are reaping this, perhaps further increased taxes on alcohol, fags, sugar drinks and fast food outlets.

meursault

RallyBiker wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

meursault wrote:

I was alluding to the class of professional politicians, rather than literally a career politician. There's a difference between the likes of Corbyn, active campaigner, rebel and the self serving careerist that typifies todays mp's. Corbyn has never (so far) been bought by the bosses, and has a (reformist) socialist manifesto. That in itself is anti establishment, so a long way from the Tory 2nd XI of Blairs new labour.

Is this Momentum Bingo? We had 'MSM' a few times, so I just need 'metropolitan elite' for a full house.

Outside of the Labour Party, Corbyn's support just isn't that great, so it's no surprise that publications which seek a slightly broader readership are more critical. What Corbyn supporters seem to fail to accept is that individual socialist fervour is not a substitute for actually persuading the majority of people outside the party who wouldn't automatically vote Labour. If austerity is the evil that you say, then to stand any chance of it being changed Labour needs to get a lot more votes than those of the ~600,000 members.

You know you're dealing with the hard left when they use phrases like 'Tory 2nd XI' or 'Tories with red rosettes' when referring to the Blarite wing of Labour

Indeed!

I think the 'swing' (is that a bingo!?) from the LP membership and the wider potential electorate support, is away from neo liberal New Labour, and back to what the party was founded on and for. Originally founded because the Tories and Liberals of the day did not represent working class people. Why would the vast majority of people vote for candidates that support big business and not fight for the needs of ordinary people? Blair's moronic grin worked for a while, but that time is gone.

Indeed it is gone - a bit like the support for Labour
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Seriously, Corbyn is just too far left to appeal to enough of the electorate to win Labour a general election. Ironically you slag off Blair, but he got Labour into power - three times in a row. The only way they have a hope of getting back into power is to go back towards the centre ground.

That was then, times have changed.

I remember canvassing the door steps for Militant (insert looney left jokes here...) pre Blair. There was massive support for him and LP because of an ingrained ageing loyal base. We explained how the LP was going to sell out to the bosses and the ruling class, but of course, it fell on deaf ears, drowned out by D:Reams sound track, and de-ideologising (my made up term) and a move towards personality politics and the lies of social democracy. Trickle down economics LOL. An Americanisation of politics ensued, which is of course, how the ruling class want it. No real ordinary people involved, leave it to the pro's. Distract by which man or woman is nicer or not.

The point being, that loyal base has evaporated. Leaving millions of working class people unrepresented in government. Corbyn got the leadership in an anomaly of incompetence by the PLP. He slipped through kind of un-noticed. But now that he is here, confidence in a different ideology to the status quo is growing. Hence the working class are not looking back to new labour, but looking now, for a genuine alternative.

My question is, if the Labour party does not purge the blairites and Corbyn is eventually brought down, what is the next step for the working class?

A new workers party?

Who do you actually class as the working class? Anyone who has a job would vote Conservative or UKIP. Students, luvvies and the rich celebs all vote "Labour". "Labour" needs to find itself a new name, cos they sure as hell don't represent me and my kind!

Your class is defined by your relationship to the means of production.

Earning a wage, but not owning your business makes you working class.
Working in and owning your own small business is middle class.
owning the means of production ruling class.

There are some grey areas. A teacher for example earns wages, but doesn't directly add value to a business, so bordering on middle class.

I don't know what you do, but working class consciousness is discovered by the realisation that we are exploited. That the distractions the ruling class convey, like racism and other discriminations are not the problem, but the ruling class themselves.

tangled_metal

I was listening to this NHS doctor who's job it was to counsel patients going in for planned but short notice surgery and their family's. He had to counsel more families who had their surgery cancelled.

It got me thinking. Every time I've been in for surgery, admittedly rather minor jobs, the reason for the cancellations that happened was down to the consultant. The last one i got chosen to be bumped because everyone else on his surgery list that day had already had a cancellation and would go over a time deadline if they got bumped. I still had spare waiting time so could get bumped without the consultant looking bad. The nurses were great though. One told me the score. That consultant had a bad habit of overloading his surgery list beyond what he could manage. It made him look good so long as he could manage the cancellations and tyre target deadlines. He had been told that day's list was impossible but had chosen to ignore it. He's the boss afterall.

That day's trouble started with the first patient. Because his team hadn't really looked at the patient history they hadn't noticed it was a big job. Thought it was a cartilage shave but it was obviously a full knee rebuild. A half hour arthroscopy turned into a several hour, open surgery job. Still by the time i had got told i was bumped, 13:30 or later (nil by mouth for well over 12 hours) the surgery had finished because i saw the consultant walking out for lunch.

A digression but part of the problem with the NHS IMHO is the senior doctors working for it!

To support that there's a newspaper story about the GP surgeries that close early or take afternoons off. Makes me believe in the quote i heard from the founder of the NHS about stuffing the doctor's mouths with gold. Still, they're better than NHS dentists!

bompington

meursault wrote:

Your class is defined by your relationship to the means of production.

Earning a wage, but not owning your business makes you working class.
Working in and owning your own small business is middle class.
owning the means of production ruling class.

There are some grey areas. A teacher for example earns wages, but doesn't directly add value to a business, so bordering on middle class.

I don't know what you do, but working class consciousness is discovered by the realisation that we are exploited. That the distractions the ruling class convey, like racism and other discriminations are not the problem, but the ruling class themselves.

:?: :!: :shock:

So much mind-numbing wrongness it's hard to know where to start. What about all the fatcat executives on multi-million pound salaries? Will they be happy to know they're working class?

Still, I will admit that I'm proud to be "bordering on middle class". Maybe if I try just a little bit harder I might squeeze in...

Not to mention that I'm struggling to work out what value my employer's business (educating children) would have without us...

tangled_metal

@mersault

By your reckoning most people are working class. What about the person wheeling and dealing on eBay and car boots like a lass i knew. Working class through and through by most people's reckoning but your definitions has her as middle class.

Also what about public sector workers? Police, fire officers, army, nurses, NHS laboratory biochemists, etc.? Working class?

I always include aspiration and education in the mix personally. I think that's also part of the mainstream view on class. That's why the experts seem to always talk about the changing makeup of middle class. Professions are getting replaced by trades. A plumber is becoming middle class whilst say a teacher is dropping into working class. Although I'm pretty sure the experts in demographics have moved on from the simplistic 3 class system so popular with socialists (especially middle class socialists).

tangled_metal

I remember watching a documentary where Prescott, newly retired and enobled, was going round the country looking into class. It was old class war, socialist diatribe. Like the interview with the family living on benefits. The argument from Prescott was how the system was keeping them down and not giving them opportunity. The guy being interviewed was not saying what Prescott needed to hear to prove his point. The guy being interviewed, in his own home too, was getting a bit annoyed. Everything he said was being ignored by Prescott who kept turning to the camera to give a class war sermon over what that guy had said. The two men were saying the opposite to each other and that was the reason i lost all respect for Prescott. That programme was a polemic about class war but most of the interviews contradicted that class theory so Prescott had to do his own sermons over the top. Pathetic socialist wedded to an ideology that never worked. Division is just that. Divide and conquer. Isn't that the tactic of Marxist infiltrators? Split factions within a local Labour party so your side can step in and control it?

Sorry but class ideology is a misleading idea IMHO because it has been hijacked from a demographic theory that gets updated to a time frozen concept to further socialist ideology any theory (that word is used in its loosest meaning).

surrey_commuter

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

Your class is defined by your relationship to the means of production.

Earning a wage, but not owning your business makes you working class.
Working in and owning your own small business is middle class.
owning the means of production ruling class.

There are some grey areas. A teacher for example earns wages, but doesn't directly add value to a business, so bordering on middle class.

I don't know what you do, but working class consciousness is discovered by the realisation that we are exploited. That the distractions the ruling class convey, like racism and other discriminations are not the problem, but the ruling class themselves.

:?: :!: :shock:

So much mind-numbing wrongness it's hard to know where to start. What about all the fatcat executives on multi-million pound salaries? Will they be happy to know they're working class?

Still, I will admit that I'm proud to be "bordering on middle class". Maybe if I try just a little bit harder I might squeeze in...

Not to mention that I'm struggling to work out what value my employer's business (educating children) would have without us...

I suspect this is from Das Kapital so approx 100 years old.

It is interesting as it shows us how much society has changed. You can now be a non-business owning wage earner and be very comfortably middle class. Conversely there are many small business owners who would reject the label middle class.
Ruling class must include politicians (Corbyn) and senior civil servants as well as business (presumably land) owners?

meursault

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

Your class is defined by your relationship to the means of production.

Earning a wage, but not owning your business makes you working class.
Working in and owning your own small business is middle class.
owning the means of production ruling class.

There are some grey areas. A teacher for example earns wages, but doesn't directly add value to a business, so bordering on middle class.

I don't know what you do, but working class consciousness is discovered by the realisation that we are exploited. That the distractions the ruling class convey, like racism and other discriminations are not the problem, but the ruling class themselves.

:?: :!: :shock:

So much mind-numbing wrongness it's hard to know where to start. What about all the fatcat executives on multi-million pound salaries? Will they be happy to know they're working class?

Still, I will admit that I'm proud to be "bordering on middle class". Maybe if I try just a little bit harder I might squeeze in...

Not to mention that I'm struggling to work out what value my employer's business (educating children) would have without us...

You'll need to take it up with Marx, not sure he's up to your level though...

meursault

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

Your class is defined by your relationship to the means of production.

Earning a wage, but not owning your business makes you working class.
Working in and owning your own small business is middle class.
owning the means of production ruling class.

There are some grey areas. A teacher for example earns wages, but doesn't directly add value to a business, so bordering on middle class.

I don't know what you do, but working class consciousness is discovered by the realisation that we are exploited. That the distractions the ruling class convey, like racism and other discriminations are not the problem, but the ruling class themselves.

:?: :!: :shock:

So much mind-numbing wrongness it's hard to know where to start. What about all the fatcat executives on multi-million pound salaries? Will they be happy to know they're working class?

Still, I will admit that I'm proud to be "bordering on middle class". Maybe if I try just a little bit harder I might squeeze in...

Not to mention that I'm struggling to work out what value my employer's business (educating children) would have without us...

I suspect this is from Das Kapital so approx 100 years old.

It is interesting as it shows us how much society has changed. You can now be a non-business owning wage earner and be very comfortably middle class. Conversely there are many small business owners who would reject the label middle class.
Ruling class must include politicians (Corbyn) and senior civil servants as well as business (presumably land) owners?

Nope, it's all down to your relationship to the means of production, not what you think you should be.

bompington

meursault wrote:

You'll need to take it up with Marx, not sure he's up to your level though...

TBH I don't think he is. I don't mean that I think I am more intelligent, but I think the benefit of more than a century and a half where his theories have proved to be utterly unsuited to the real world mean that I am better-informed.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

Your class is defined by your relationship to the means of production.

Earning a wage, but not owning your business makes you working class.
Working in and owning your own small business is middle class.
owning the means of production ruling class.

There are some grey areas. A teacher for example earns wages, but doesn't directly add value to a business, so bordering on middle class.

I don't know what you do, but working class consciousness is discovered by the realisation that we are exploited. That the distractions the ruling class convey, like racism and other discriminations are not the problem, but the ruling class themselves.

:?: :!: :shock:

So much mind-numbing wrongness it's hard to know where to start. What about all the fatcat executives on multi-million pound salaries? Will they be happy to know they're working class?

Still, I will admit that I'm proud to be "bordering on middle class". Maybe if I try just a little bit harder I might squeeze in...

Not to mention that I'm struggling to work out what value my employer's business (educating children) would have without us...

I suspect this is from Das Kapital so approx 100 years old.

It is interesting as it shows us how much society has changed. You can now be a non-business owning wage earner and be very comfortably middle class. Conversely there are many small business owners who would reject the label middle class.
Ruling class must include politicians (Corbyn) and senior civil servants as well as business (presumably land) owners?

Nope, it's all down to your relationship to the means of production, not what you think you should be.

The Chief Exec of my organisation will be devastated to learn he is working class. He probably thought having a Knighthood would make all the difference the poor deluded working class fool! If he wants to become a bit more respectable I think he'll need to resign and buy a chip van.

meursault

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

You'll need to take it up with Marx, not sure he's up to your level though...

TBH I don't think he is. I don't mean that I think I am more intelligent, but I think the benefit of more than a century and a half where his theories have proved to be utterly unsuited to the real world mean that I am better-informed.

You should consider a career in philosophy as the human race may be missing out on your insights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... winner.stm

bompington

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

meursault wrote:

You'll need to take it up with Marx, not sure he's up to your level though...

TBH I don't think he is. I don't mean that I think I am more intelligent, but I think the benefit of more than a century and a half where his theories have proved to be utterly unsuited to the real world mean that I am better-informed.

You should consider a career in philosophy as the human race may be missing out on your insights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... winner.stm

Well, I suppose that if you measure someone's impact on the world by the sheer number of people massacred in the name of their philosophy, then he's streets ahead of the rest.

And the human race isn't missing out on my insights, because they're not unique to me - like I pointed out, pretty much everyone apart from a few deluded dinosaurs has rejected Marxism by now.

tangled_metal

So at which point in history should we stop the clock on economic/philosophical/political thought or theory? Shall we have a poll on it. So far we have the following votes:

mersault - 100 years ago


Copy and insert your vote.

meursault

Calm down, If Marxism is irrelevant, just forget it, no need to get so wound up.

tangled_metal

I am very calm. It's just i find Marxist thought in modern times as an amusing idea. It never seems to go away but gets taken up by each new generation. Old socialist dinosaurs then get a new fashionable status as the outsiders i guess. At the end of the day Marxism is definitely time stamped as an ideology. If the left feel the need to be nostalgic, due to the failure of new Labour regimes, then by all means resurrect it. In the meantime politics will move on by and you'll be consigned to repeat history. All the while believing that socialism will win out this time.

meursault

Tangled Metal wrote:

I am very calm. It's just i find Marxist thought in modern times as an amusing idea. It never seems to go away but gets taken up by each new generation. Old socialist dinosaurs then get a new fashionable status as the outsiders i guess. At the end of the day Marxism is definitely time stamped as an ideology. If the left feel the need to be nostalgic, due to the failure of new Labour regimes, then by all means resurrect it. In the meantime politics will move on by and you'll be consigned to repeat history. All the while believing that socialism will win out this time.

The Guardian (Yes MSM, I know...) Couple of years back


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... st-century

Stevo_666

meursault wrote:

Calm down, If Marxism is irrelevant, just forget it, no need to get so wound up.

What's irrelevant?

tangled_metal

Any link with "Commentisfree" in it is usually not worth reading IMHO. It's a highly moderated part of guardian online and has been highly criticised in the past by both sides of the politics spectrum. Generally it's a part of the guardian set up to espouse the political leanings of the editor/paper. Comment is certainly not free on there.

Of course any arguments about relevance of past theories can find their supporters. I wonder how many comment articles are around saying Marxism is irrelevant?