Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tailwindhome

rick_chasey said:

Why the focus on Lynch? There are dozens of other industries with strike actions.

Because focusing on nurses would be political suicide

kingstongraham

But why Lynch to have a dig at Labour? He hates the Labour Party.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

But why Lynch to have a dig at Labour? He hates the Labour Party.

Not sure what your point is. I was having a dig at Lynch and the RMT. What he says about Labour in the link above speaks volumes about how far to left Lynch really is.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

But why Lynch to have a dig at Labour? He hates the Labour Party.

Not sure what your point is. I was having a dig at Lynch and the RMT. What he says about Labour in the link above speaks volumes about how far to left Lynch really is.

Well, quite. But even with your man Corbyn in charge, they didn't come back to the fold, so I'm not sure why it is in the Labour Party thread.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

...

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far

When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.

Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?

Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.

The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.

I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.

Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.

Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/

Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.

Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.

You don't think that Sunak is engaged in trying to dictate what 'classes' get access to what resources, and that that might be both motivating Lynch and giving him ammunition?

The widening gap between the well-off and the not-well-off suggests why the not-well-off might be sensing that it's time to make a stand, and that they have a reasonable degree of public support (certainly greater in the case of nurses). The record of this government (in turbo-charged form with Truss & Kwarteng) is that the widening gap does not concern them in the least.

If Lynch doesn't have the public support he needs, ultimately he'll fail. But of course it's politics: it takes two to tango.

Not sure exactly what Sunak may be doing to achieve what you claim in your first paragraph, but again in the link Lynch is quoted as seeing himself as part of a class struggle. It's not a case of now is the time to make a stand; lefties have always seen it this way. He's just a hard left dinosaur.

Well obviously. Which is why it's such a stupid move to give Lynch exactly the showdown he wants.

What, by giving in?

Eh? No. By making a sensible offer before any union even gets to balloting members over strike action. If it gets as far as one party downing tools there's already a collective failure.

rick_chasey

At some point the strikes will cost everyone more than the pay rise. The unions represent the workers - the people representing the public ought to be making that calculation.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

...

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far

When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.

Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?

Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.

The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.

I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.

Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.

Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/

Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.

Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.

You don't think that Sunak is engaged in trying to dictate what 'classes' get access to what resources, and that that might be both motivating Lynch and giving him ammunition?

The widening gap between the well-off and the not-well-off suggests why the not-well-off might be sensing that it's time to make a stand, and that they have a reasonable degree of public support (certainly greater in the case of nurses). The record of this government (in turbo-charged form with Truss & Kwarteng) is that the widening gap does not concern them in the least.

If Lynch doesn't have the public support he needs, ultimately he'll fail. But of course it's politics: it takes two to tango.

Not sure exactly what Sunak may be doing to achieve what you claim in your first paragraph, but again in the link Lynch is quoted as seeing himself as part of a class struggle. It's not a case of now is the time to make a stand; lefties have always seen it this way. He's just a hard left dinosaur.

Well obviously. Which is why it's such a stupid move to give Lynch exactly the showdown he wants.

What, by giving in?

Eh? No. By making a sensible offer before any union even gets to balloting members over strike action. If it gets as far as one party downing tools there's already a collective failure.

In my view a sensible offer was made to the RMT lot and it was rejected. Clearly there are others.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

...

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far

When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.

Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?

Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.

The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.

I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.

Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.

Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/

Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.

Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.

You don't think that Sunak is engaged in trying to dictate what 'classes' get access to what resources, and that that might be both motivating Lynch and giving him ammunition?

The widening gap between the well-off and the not-well-off suggests why the not-well-off might be sensing that it's time to make a stand, and that they have a reasonable degree of public support (certainly greater in the case of nurses). The record of this government (in turbo-charged form with Truss & Kwarteng) is that the widening gap does not concern them in the least.

If Lynch doesn't have the public support he needs, ultimately he'll fail. But of course it's politics: it takes two to tango.

Not sure exactly what Sunak may be doing to achieve what you claim in your first paragraph, but again in the link Lynch is quoted as seeing himself as part of a class struggle. It's not a case of now is the time to make a stand; lefties have always seen it this way. He's just a hard left dinosaur.

Well obviously. Which is why it's such a stupid move to give Lynch exactly the showdown he wants.

What, by giving in?

Eh? No. By making a sensible offer before any union even gets to balloting members over strike action. If it gets as far as one party downing tools there's already a collective failure.

I think that only works when there hasn't been a shock to the system (in this case from Covid and Ukraine conflict).

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

...

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

The lack of a reply to my post above suggests that googling a stock graph from an economics website and posting it on here only gets you so far

When was the last time there weren’t chronic shortages? Have a look and then extrapolate what those real wages were.

Given they’ve had roughly a 5% real wage cut since 2010, and inflation is currently at 10%, you’d expect 15% would the close to the mark, unless you’re going to say they were overpaid in 2010?

Hard to say what is overpaid in this case. Although I know rom my medic friends that the NHS pension arrangements are pretty generous (being a mixture of final salary and career average DB schemes), which is worth a lot compared to to DC schemes most of us have.

The problem with a rise like that is that it will encourage other unions to go on strike for more. Can't imagine Mick Lynch and the other hard left union barons settling for less if the government rolls over on this one.

I think you've bought into Lynch's own hype a bit too much. Sunak is playing right into Lynch's hands by trying to act tough. He could have completely undermined most of Lynch's nonsense (as R4 did in their interview) if he'd just authorised making a sensible offer on day one.

Sunak is obviously hoping that Lynch will be his Scargill, but that's not going to fly, firstly because Lynch is smarter than Scargill, and because there was a genuine fear (not universally shared, obviously) that Scargill could bring the country to its knees, at a time when union power was much greater, and coal had the monopoly on power generation. Scargill also (IIRC) overplayed his hand by not balloting his members, so giving Thatcher's actions some cover. As far as I'm aware, Lynch has played it by the (union rule) book.

Whether he has or hasn't played it by the rule book, I'm pretty sure there is a political motivation to what he is doing.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/14/mick-lynch-bandwagon-has-stalled-knows/

Why shouldn't there be? Sunak is also 'playing politics' by refusing to listen: he's playing into Lynch's hands. the way that Scargill played into Thatcher's hands.

Read the link about what Lynch said: he sees himself as engaged in the old class struggle. Typical deluded hard leftie. That is a very different from allegedly not listening.

You don't think that Sunak is engaged in trying to dictate what 'classes' get access to what resources, and that that might be both motivating Lynch and giving him ammunition?

The widening gap between the well-off and the not-well-off suggests why the not-well-off might be sensing that it's time to make a stand, and that they have a reasonable degree of public support (certainly greater in the case of nurses). The record of this government (in turbo-charged form with Truss & Kwarteng) is that the widening gap does not concern them in the least.

If Lynch doesn't have the public support he needs, ultimately he'll fail. But of course it's politics: it takes two to tango.

Not sure exactly what Sunak may be doing to achieve what you claim in your first paragraph, but again in the link Lynch is quoted as seeing himself as part of a class struggle. It's not a case of now is the time to make a stand; lefties have always seen it this way. He's just a hard left dinosaur.

Well obviously. Which is why it's such a stupid move to give Lynch exactly the showdown he wants.

What, by giving in?

Eh? No. By making a sensible offer before any union even gets to balloting members over strike action. If it gets as far as one party downing tools there's already a collective failure.

I think that only works when there hasn't been a shock to the system (in this case from Covid and Ukraine conflict).

That argument holds less water when a) covid was reliant on the NHS staff to stop people dying and the whole thing falling over and b) the government is comfortable with private energy firms coining it due to the energy shortage.

If they don’t accept people wanting more money to cover energy related costs, but are happy for energy companies to make huge profits they’re basically agreeing to transfer that prosperity away from working people to the energy companies.

That doesn’t seem that fair. Either you let people maximise their profits, personally or as a firm, or you don’t. Energy companies are allowed to maximise scarcity for their own ends but unionised workers can’t?

And clearly using the cost of covid as a way to depress wages only holds water for those “non-essential” jobs that didn’t have to keep going during covid. And it holds absolutely no water when it comes to nurses and healthcare workers.

TheBigBean

I'm not denying anyone's right to strike, but think compromise will only be found when both sides have experienced some pain. And that this is happening because there has been a shock to the system.

TheBigBean

And I've posted several times that allowing efficient gas generators to make massive profits whilst taxing renewable generators really isn't a good thing.

Pross

When was the last time a Union walked away with anything close to what they were asking for from a strike? It feels like in most cases they eventually accept what is at most a face saving offer and the members are happy to accept by that stage.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

When was the last time a Union walked away with anything close to what they were asking for from a strike? It feels like in most cases they eventually accept what is at most a face saving offer and the members are happy to accept by that stage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-63717712

kingstongraham

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

When was the last time a Union walked away with anything close to what they were asking for from a strike? It feels like in most cases they eventually accept what is at most a face saving offer and the members are happy to accept by that stage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-63717712

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63404712

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

When was the last time a Union walked away with anything close to what they were asking for from a strike? It feels like in most cases they eventually accept what is at most a face saving offer and the members are happy to accept by that stage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-63717712

I’d say that’s pretty unusual and on a local level only. Of the big national level strikes I can think of both sides usually claim a victory but it feels like it is normally closer to the employers starting point than the Unions. I reckon we would have had a resolution to the nurses strike by now if it had been 5% above inflation at last years rates but the combination of the 5% and already high inflation is making people dig their heels in from the start.

pblakeney

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

When was the last time a Union walked away with anything close to what they were asking for from a strike? It feels like in most cases they eventually accept what is at most a face saving offer and the members are happy to accept by that stage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-63717712

I’d say that’s pretty unusual and on a local level only. Of the big national level strikes I can think of both sides usually claim a victory but it feels like it is normally closer to the employers starting point than the Unions. I reckon we would have had a resolution to the nurses strike by now if it had been 5% above inflation at last years rates but the combination of the 5% and already high inflation is making people dig their heels in from the start.

Trouble is that the unions know that they have to aim high to get something meaningful. So high that the government has dug it's heels in. I suspect they would have anyway.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

And I've posted several times that allowing efficient gas generators to make massive profits whilst taxing renewable generators really isn't a good thing.

Sure but the gov't wants it both ways at the moment.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

I'm not denying anyone's right to strike, but think compromise will only be found when both sides have experienced some pain. And that this is happening because there has been a shock to the system.

TBF most of the strikers have seen real wages fall over the last 10 years. Is that not sufficient pain?

Every time there is a strike, the people representing the public cost the public more money.

So they need to calculate the cost to the public of the strikes versus the cost to the public for giving in to the pay demands.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

When was the last time a Union walked away with anything close to what they were asking for from a strike? It feels like in most cases they eventually accept what is at most a face saving offer and the members are happy to accept by that stage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-63717712

I’d say that’s pretty unusual and on a local level only. Of the big national level strikes I can think of both sides usually claim a victory but it feels like it is normally closer to the employers starting point than the Unions. I reckon we would have had a resolution to the nurses strike by now if it had been 5% above inflation at last years rates but the combination of the 5% and already high inflation is making people dig their heels in from the start.

That was just a random example - there's quite a few over the last year where strikes or the threat of strikes have brought results.

Probably not much from the previous few years, but there haven't been that many strikes in the low inflation world.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

When was the last time a Union walked away with anything close to what they were asking for from a strike? It feels like in most cases they eventually accept what is at most a face saving offer and the members are happy to accept by that stage.

That's what we are aiming for.

kingstongraham

The Telegraph has a new columnist.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/14/nhs-not-out-of-bounds-shrine-needs-unsentimental-reform/

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

The Telegraph has a new columnist.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/14/nhs-not-out-of-bounds-shrine-needs-unsentimental-reform/

Seem to recall the Telegraph has in the past given a platform to those whose views it doesn't necessarily agree with. A few other news outlets should probably do the same.

kingstongraham

So you reckon The Telegraph doesn't think there's a need for reform in the NHS?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

So you reckon The Telegraph doesn't think there's a need for reform in the NHS?

I didn't mean on that specific issue. Was talking generally.

briantrumpet

For the sake of balance...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/23/ex-mp-jared-o-mara-made-up-expenses-claims-fund-cocaine-habit-court-told

Sounds very sad.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

For the sake of balance...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/23/ex-mp-jared-o-mara-made-up-expenses-claims-fund-cocaine-habit-court-told

Sounds very sad.

I guess this won't get much debate on here: after all, Class A drug use and fraud aren't nearly as bad as a tax error.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

For the sake of balance...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/23/ex-mp-jared-o-mara-made-up-expenses-claims-fund-cocaine-habit-court-told

Sounds very sad.

I guess this won't get much debate on here: after all, Class A drug use and fraud aren't nearly as bad as a tax error.

Ex backbench MP now. £30,000. Not exactly equivalent to a Chancellor of the Exchequer and current cabinet minister allegedly lying about a £27m capital gain and his being investigated, and trying to get the courts to silence the press.

Zahawi wouldn't be getting half the attention he is getting here or anywhere else had he fessed up and resigned by now. 🦆

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

For the sake of balance...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/23/ex-mp-jared-o-mara-made-up-expenses-claims-fund-cocaine-habit-court-told

Sounds very sad.

I guess this won't get much debate on here: after all, Class A drug use and fraud aren't nearly as bad as a tax error.

Had you heard of him before now?

briantrumpet

Class A drugs, you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Zpw4wWq50

kingstongraham

He was elected a Labour MP in June 2017, and kicked out of the Labour Party in October 2017.

Big failure of vetting there, but he didn't quite make it to one of the great offices of state.