Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…449450452454455…501

Comments

  • super_davo
    super_davo Posts: 1,205
    surrey_commuter said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Go for it Jezza
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/12/mayor-jeremy-corbyn-he-can-still-destroy-the-labour-party/


    I think that, on the whole, Starmer would enjoy reading that... it's quite flattering.
    Not too flattering about the party though. Even if he is vaguely sensible he will be undone by the leftie sh*t show that is his party. Witness Rayner today promising to unleash the union attack dogs on business if they win.
    I would have thought the party of fvck business would approve of that
    The real party of fvck business is waiting in the wings...
    not sure you can get more real than the leader stating it.

    To be fair in context he was not saying he wanted to fvck business he was merely saying that he did not care about it.

    When you consider the record levels of debt, borrowing, and taxes it is remarkable how far the current iteration of the Tory Party has moved from their traditional values.
    It's the difference between saying and doing...
    I pretty sure that Labour have not said they are going to do any of those things.
    My explanation is that many "will vote Tory whatever" do so because of an irrational fear of the alternative based on the Labour party of the 70s; I have spoken to others who have said similar, despite none of those fears coming to fruition under new Labour, or being what the current party are saying they will do.

    I suspect the current iteration of Tories will create the same irrational fear the other way for generations. The chaos of the last 8 years won't be forgotten in a hurry.



  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

    I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.
    In what way?
    A decade and a half of wage stagnation.
    Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
    This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.
    So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element
    Not mainstream enough for me to have heard of it.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    edited September 2023
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

    I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.
    In what way?
    A decade and a half of wage stagnation.
    Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
    This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.
    So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element
    can you talk us through that
    I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

    I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

    Something like that, I’m no economist.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

    I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.
    In what way?
    A decade and a half of wage stagnation.
    Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
    This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.
    So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element
    can you talk us through that
    I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

    I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

    Something like that, I’m no economist.
    Right.
    In that case union laws are too strong and not too weak as per your earlier post.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    edited September 2023
    Run me through that as I just described the problem with too much employer power.

    Edit: I mean you should strengthen labour/union bargaining powers or more accurately redress the balance between the two
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    edited September 2023
    What you wrote is:-
    .
    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

    I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    pblakeney said:

    What you wrote is:-
    .

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

    I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.
    Yeah as in the laws make the unions weaker than they should be.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    Just admit it. You wrote it incorrectly. You meant union laws are too oppressive.
    It's allowed. I did it twice today on another thread. People make mistakes.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    Yeah I just did?
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    rick_chasey said:

    Yeah I just did?

    No.
    You simply wrote the opposite of what you wrote earlier.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    Yeah and I just explained what I meant?
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    As long as we got there in the end I suppose.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,148
    edited September 2023
    pblakeney said:

    Just admit it. You wrote it incorrectly. You meant union laws are too oppressive.
    It's allowed. I did it twice today on another thread. People make mistakes.

    I think it depends if you are looking at the law being there to protect workers (in which case his wording is correct) or they are there to suppress the Unions (in which case your interpretation is correct). It’s quite an interesting point actually.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    We need to take to account to that union leadership is not always interested solely in the interests of the union members. Seems fairly clear to me that some have political agendas and the members are to some extent 'pawns in the game'. Which is a good reason to have laws that protect the rest of us.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • skyblueamateur
    skyblueamateur Posts: 1,498
    It’s Government overreach
  • skyblueamateur
    skyblueamateur Posts: 1,498
    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    skyblueamateur said:

    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.

    We don't want hard left dinosaurs trying to hold the country to ransom so they can try to 'stick one on the Tories'. Hence some sensible rules to keep the worst of them in their boxes.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    skyblueamateur said:

    It’s Government overreach

    I see what you're trying to do there. Pity you're wrong.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.

    We don't want hard left dinosaurs trying to hold the country to ransom so they can try to 'stick one on the Tories'. Hence some sensible rules to keep the worst of them in their boxes.
    It's like you've not been outside for a while. All this chat about preventing union bosses - or is it union members? - from holding the country to ransom and bringing in new laws for this that and the other. Result: worst industrial relations in years and more strikes than ever.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,969
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.

    We don't want hard left dinosaurs trying to hold the country to ransom so they can try to 'stick one on the Tories'. Hence some sensible rules to keep the worst of them in their boxes.
    It's like you've not been outside for a while. All this chat about preventing union bosses - or is it union members? - from holding the country to ransom and bringing in new laws for this that and the other. Result: worst industrial relations in years and more strikes than ever.
    Not only that but it will be hard to 'stick one on the Tories' when Labour are in charge.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    Pretty evident that the majority of the country is planning to do that in a few months time.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • skyblueamateur
    skyblueamateur Posts: 1,498
    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    It’s Government overreach

    I see what you're trying to do there. Pity you're wrong.
    Good chat. Thank you.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.

    We don't want hard left dinosaurs trying to hold the country to ransom so they can try to 'stick one on the Tories'. Hence some sensible rules to keep the worst of them in their boxes.
    It's like you've not been outside for a while. All this chat about preventing union bosses - or is it union members? - from holding the country to ransom and bringing in new laws for this that and the other. Result: worst industrial relations in years and more strikes than ever.
    Half of that was down to Richi doing his thatcher cosplay tbf.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.

    We don't want hard left dinosaurs trying to hold the country to ransom so they can try to 'stick one on the Tories'. Hence some sensible rules to keep the worst of them in their boxes.
    It's like you've not been outside for a while. All this chat about preventing union bosses - or is it union members? - from holding the country to ransom and bringing in new laws for this that and the other. Result: worst industrial relations in years and more strikes than ever.
    How do you think giving the likes of Mick Lynch more freedom to cause chaos is going to make things better? Because that's what we're talking about here.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    skyblueamateur said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    It’s Government overreach

    I see what you're trying to do there. Pity you're wrong.
    Good chat. Thank you.
    I see you didn't disagree. Ta.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.

    We don't want hard left dinosaurs trying to hold the country to ransom so they can try to 'stick one on the Tories'. Hence some sensible rules to keep the worst of them in their boxes.
    It's like you've not been outside for a while. All this chat about preventing union bosses - or is it union members? - from holding the country to ransom and bringing in new laws for this that and the other. Result: worst industrial relations in years and more strikes than ever.
    How do you think giving the likes of Mick Lynch more freedom to cause chaos is going to make things better? Because that's what we're talking about here.
    In what way has his freedom been restricted in the first place? And what specifically do you think is being proposed that will change this? Actual specific policies rather rhetoric.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,598
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.

    We don't want hard left dinosaurs trying to hold the country to ransom so they can try to 'stick one on the Tories'. Hence some sensible rules to keep the worst of them in their boxes.
    It's like you've not been outside for a while. All this chat about preventing union bosses - or is it union members? - from holding the country to ransom and bringing in new laws for this that and the other. Result: worst industrial relations in years and more strikes than ever.
    How do you think giving the likes of Mick Lynch more freedom to cause chaos is going to make things better? Because that's what we're talking about here.
    In what way has his freedom been restricted in the first place? And what specifically do you think is being proposed that will change this? Actual specific policies rather rhetoric.
    I'm looking for an answer to my question, not questions in return.

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    Maybe allowing unions to bargain more strongly before it gets to the point that the requests sound completely unreasonable would help people get pay that they are happy with over the long term.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    skyblueamateur said:

    Unions often get it wrong. Their leadership are democratically elected though so it is up to their membership to decide if they have got it wrong.

    We don't want hard left dinosaurs trying to hold the country to ransom so they can try to 'stick one on the Tories'. Hence some sensible rules to keep the worst of them in their boxes.
    It's like you've not been outside for a while. All this chat about preventing union bosses - or is it union members? - from holding the country to ransom and bringing in new laws for this that and the other. Result: worst industrial relations in years and more strikes than ever.
    How do you think giving the likes of Mick Lynch more freedom to cause chaos is going to make things better? Because that's what we're talking about here.
    In what way has his freedom been restricted in the first place? And what specifically do you think is being proposed that will change this? Actual specific policies rather rhetoric.
    I'm looking for an answer to my question, not questions in return.

    I've not seen anything to suggest he would be given more freedom. Happy to consider anything you can post.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
    https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

    I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.
    In what way?
    A decade and a half of wage stagnation.
    Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
    This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.
    So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element
    can you talk us through that
    I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

    I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

    Something like that, I’m no economist.
    Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

Categories