UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ketara**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
As opposed to a country where our Chancellor wines and dines Googles Chief Executive..... oh wait.

It's weird. You'd almost think that I'd made an argument that I liked people other than the government having too much control over the government when it was the Tories instead.

Anyway, I maintain my point. No google or newspaper executive has brought on the winter of discontent or anything even close to it. When google stops the bins being picked up, or the ill being treated, or corpses buried, we can talk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

**Rosebuddy**

Ketara wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Workers gaining power is the point of unions. Withholding production is one of the simplest ways of fighting back against your employer, whose exploitation of you is why you have a job in the first place. People why try to sabotage your efforts at reclaiming the worth you produce are not people you need to be kind to at all. They're called scabs, you know? The police exist precisely to stop workers from taking the factories over. They are not an ally.

Unions that join together and do mass strikes and recognise the police as their enemy are good unions. This is basic leftism.

And when legislation can't get through Parliament without the support of the Unions? When they're holding the Government and country to ransom? You essentially end up with a bunch of unelected Trotskyites running the country, and when as mentioned, enough of those unions aren't even representing their own members so much as they're forcing people to join or get the crap kicked out of them round the back, you have problems.

I want to live in a democracy. Not a country where my elected Prime Minister has to wine and dine the head of TUC and other unions and desperately try and persuade them to let the economy start moving again, like over pay rates in 1974. And then to have to accede to whatever they dictate.

You can live in a Trotskyite fantasy if you like. I'll pass. What you're describing isn't Unions preventing workers from exploitation so much as it is workers being exploited by a small group of hard-left people who manipulate them to realise their own political wet dreams. Much like New Labour, but more kicking the gak out of people who don;t want to join you.

The one living in a fantasy here is you. You see careerist politicians trying to kick out a social democrat who is wildly popular with the actual Labour base and drawing in tens of thousands of new supporters because he is someone who finally shares their ideals and think that, obviously, it's the Hard Left manipulating the poor saps who watch X-Factor and pay £3 and don't know anything about politics unlike your own good self who hates unions and doesn't want any of that class war silliness in your leftist party. The fact of the matter is that Corbyn isn't disliked among MPs because of his skills or lack thereof at the abstract act of politics, organisation or oratory (unlike that wonderful Blair!) but because he's a leftist at all and would scare away the nice wine dinners with lobbyists and those cushy consultation jobs after retiring from politics would dry right up.

At every step of this hilarious process the MPs have been craven idiots with nothing but disdain for democracy and at every step the sheer depths of their incompetence and imbecility have been revealed to be greater than previously thought. After Corbyn replaced them as they quit, ignored their baseless vote of no confidence, accepted the leadership challenge and defended his right to be on the ballot (twice!) they secretly pushed through a motion to prevent new members from voting for leadership once they were sure enough Corbyn supporters had left the room for it to work and what you take away from the situation is that Corbyn is nothing but a wooden puppet for those dastardly evil trots. This is not a useful perspective.

**Kilkrazy**

Corbyn has been a career politician since he was 25 years old.

**r_squared**

Yep, this democracy thing seems to be working a treat....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
As opposed to a country where our Chancellor wines and dines Googles Chief Executive..... oh wait.

It's weird. You'd almost think that I'd made an argument that I liked people other than the government having too much control over the government when it was the Tories instead.

Anyway, I maintain my point. No google or newspaper executive has brought on the winter of discontent or anything even close to it. When google stops the bins being picked up, or the ill being treated, or corpses buried, we can talk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

How about bringing the global economy to its knees and having to be bailed out by the tax payer?

**Ketara**

Rosebuddy wrote:

The one living in a fantasy here is you. You see careerist politicians trying to kick out a social democrat who is wildly popular with the actual Labour base and drawing in tens of thousands of new supporters because he is someone who finally shares their ideals

What ideals would those be? Beyond 'mumble mumble end austerity, ditch Trident, nationalise trains, people's quantitative easing mumble mumble' Corbyn hasn't exactly laid many out. His stated policies so far have been brief as they are general for the most part.

Do you think that the number of people who voted for Farage last election share all his ideals?

think that, obviously, it's the Hard Left manipulating the poor saps who watch X-Factor and pay £3 and don't know anything about politics

I thought when Livingstone made a reappearance that it was worrying. I'm more worried now by the fact that the Unions are now the only thing keeping Corbyn in power, because unions haven't had that sort of leverage over the head of a Labour party since Callaghan. And McCluskey IS hard left. Many of the people pushing for deselection ARE hard left. Whatever the people sitting at home do or don't think, the fact remains that the hard left HAS made something of a bid to solidify it's grip on the party again under Corbyn.

Corbyn himself? I think he's a well-intentioned, if slightly self-righteous backbencher who's been backed into a corner by the PLP, and is utilising whatever tools he can grab to stay where he is. And unfortunately, the only tools he can grab are those proffered by the hard left right now, but those will come with a price if he wins.

unlike your own good self who hates unions

I actually rather like unions. I think they have a very proper place in defending the working man's leverage at the work place. I think they've been historically very significant in improving the lot of the working man, and I think most employees should be unionised. That reminds me actually, I've been meaning to join one myself. Have to do that tomorrow...

Sorry, does that disturb the rather lurid narrative you're painting of me here? I mean, 'RABBLE RABBLE EVIL UNIONS RABBLE RABBLE'.

That help?

The fact of the matter is that Corbyn isn't disliked among MPs because of his skills or lack thereof at the abstract act of politics, organisation or oratory (unlike that wonderful Blair!) but because he's a leftist at all and would scare away the nice wine dinners with lobbyists and those cushy consultation jobs after retiring from politics would dry right up.

There's a hint of that, but I think it's more that he has no chance of winning an election. YMMV.

At every step of this hilarious process the MPs have been craven idiots with nothing but disdain for democracy and at every step the sheer depths of their incompetence and imbecility have been revealed to be greater than previously thought.

You're generalising an awful lot of people there. Are you going to call them all Blairites too?

After Corbyn replaced them as they quit, ignored their baseless vote of no confidence,

He's been a pretty naff leader, as evidence by his lack of ability to, y'know lead. He's also given Cameron the easiest ride he's ever had. I have a lot of respect for Corbyn, but I wouldn't exactly call the charges on his fitness for the position 'baseless'.

accepted the leadership challenge and defended his right to be on the ballot (twice!) they secretly pushed through a motion to prevent new members from voting for leadership once they were sure enough Corbyn supporters had left the room for it to work

That's quite some revisionism. And even if it were true, it would reflect pretty poorly on Corbyn and his supporters that they'd wander off from a Council still sitting and deciding on important matters. Weak bladders or something?

what you take away from the situation is that Corbyn is nothing but a wooden puppet for those dastardly evil trots[/i].

Not quite. What I took away was that up until now, Corbyn had a certain degree of autonomy. He had a shadow cabinet (scheming or otherwise), and the (admittedly passive) support to indifference of the PLP whilst he did his job. Now? Literally the only thing keeping him there is Len McCluskey. Len can remove him tomorrow. And I don't feel that such a level of power by the Unions over the Labour party is the way forward, either for Labour, or for the country.

**r_squared**

Ketara wrote:
....
unlike your own good self who hates unions

I actually rather like unions. I think they have a very proper place in defending the working man's leverage at the work place. I think they've been historically very significant in improving the lot of the working man, and I think most employees should be unionised.

Sorry, does that disturb the rather lurid narrative you're painting of me here? I mean, 'RABBLE RABBLE EVIL UNIONS RABBLE RABBLE'.

That help?

You're painting your own lurid narrative by comparing unionism to trotsykyism and alluding to the winter of discontent as being the only result of any politicised union. The fact is that the Labour party was born out of the unions, something that NU Labour tried to distance themselves from. The 90s are over, no one is interested In Tory Lite anymore. We don't need any more conservatives, especially not smiling knife Blairites.

**Ketara**

r_squared wrote:

You're painting your own lurid narrative by comparing unionism to trotsykyism

Dear God man, have you read a history book on the sort of pull and stunts the Unions had in the 1970's? Or the biographies of the Union leaders of the time? The upper echelons of the unions were seeded with men who thought they had as much a right to run the country as the democratically elected government, and took extremely heavily from Trotskyism. Christ, look at the struggle they had keeping Militant Tendency out of the party machine?

There is unionism. And there is trotskyism. One is fine. The other is fine. When they mix and start influencing the official opposition, I get worried. Len McCluskey himself has cited in interviews that Marx, Lenin & Trotsky were 'his most significant political influences'. You know, Trotsky and Lenin, those two wonderful blokes who did so much good for the people of Russia. 'Course, a lot of people disagreed with what was best for them and had to be shot, but hey? Workers unite, etc. McCluskey is now the man with Corbyn completely in the palm of his hand (without the union votes, Corbyn wouldn't even be on the ballot).

The fact is that the Labour party was born out of the unions, something that NU Labour tried to distance themselves from.

Yup. Papering over the cracks of the fact that Union and working class support was fading. Mainly because they succeeded, and the working classes began to move upwards and life got comfy even for those at the bottom. So they tried to evolve. It didn't work, but hey, they tried.

The 90s are over, no one is interested In Tory Lite anymore. We don't need any more conservatives, especially not smiling knife Blairites.

I agree with this. I disagree McCluskey and Corbyn are the ones to do it. We need more of an Attlee government. Not a Callaghan one.

**Silent Puffin?**

Ketara wrote:

Anyway, I maintain my point. No google or newspaper executive has brought on the winter of discontent or anything even close to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

Neither have any of the current union leaders and as you said yourself the political environment is different now. The winter of discontent was 38 years ago.

Ketara wrote:

I'm more worried now by the fact that the Unions are now the only thing keeping Corbyn in power,

The huge mandate from the Labour membership is what is keeping Corbyn in power.

**Ketara**

Silent Puffin? wrote:

Neither have any of the current union leaders and as you said yourself the political environment is different now. The winter of discontent was 38 years ago.

Half and half. You are right that the winter of discontent could not be mirrored now. The Unions do not have the sway in the modern workplace and picketing capabilities have been reduced. But the fundamental power issue with potentially having a Prime Minister at the mercy of the union leaders is not quite so distant. So for example:-

The huge mandate from the Labour membership is what is keeping Corbyn in power.

That, at least, is now factually incorrect. The NEC only voted to automatically include his name on the ballot sheet by 18 to 14 votes, without the Union votes he'd have been ousted then.

Corbyn will have two choices, assuming he sees off the leadership challenge (which I think he will, although he won't get the same landslide as last time). Either he accepts he has no actual control over the PLP they don't choose to give him (rendering him completely impotent), or he'll have to start trying to deselect MP's and intimidate others until line. Corbyn is one man, he doesn't have anywhere near the level of resources, even with his momentum factional group, to pull that off on his own.

That leaves the Unions and the hard left. If they insert themselves into the key positions of the PLP, take over the local Labour groups in safe seats, and bludgeon the rest of the MP opposition into place with intimidation, they will effectively control Mr Corbyn and the Labour party. And hey, I suppose you could say that would be a good thing, and make the Labour party more true to it's roots. And there's no guarantee he'd win the next election anyway.

Regardless, I think that even the slimmest prospect of a Labour Prime Minister completely dependent on Union backing to get anything through Parliament and control the party would be a disastrous. Why? Because it would mean that the Prime Minister can do nothing without the consent of the Unions, and can be removed by them whenever they wish. In effect? That makes McCluskey, a confirmed Trotskyite by his own words, the unelected Prime Minister, with the other union bosses his cabinet.

That is what I dislike about the situation. Not some strange fear of the winter of discontent being mimicked or hatred of the unions generally. It's power politics in it's most pure form; anyone who isn't the PLP controlling the PM and Government is inherently undemocratic, because they are the ones we vote for.

**Silent Puffin?**

Ketara wrote:

Regardless, I think that even the slimmest prospect of a Labour Prime Minister completely dependent on Union backing to get anything through Parliament and control the party would be a disastrous. Why? Because it would mean that the Prime Minister can do nothing without the consent of the Unions, and can be removed by them whenever they wish.

Should he win the leadership election, and I see no reason why he won't, the PLP will have to fall broadly in line behind him or form their own breakaway party which will probably have a short shelf life; they have no other choice. The unions will not be "controlling him", they will of course be influencing him and he will be ideologically close to their position anyway but as I said earlier the same can be said for the hard right Tories and the City.

Ketara wrote:
That is what I dislike about the situation. Not some strange fear of the winter of discontent being mimicked or hatred of the unions generally. It's power politics in it's most pure form; anyone who isn't the PLP controlling the PM and Government is inherently undemocratic, because they are the ones we vote for.

Labour would need to win a general election before they can form a government which would need a pro Corbyn PLP who would have been voted in in a GE.

**reds8n**

Ketara wrote:

And even if it were the case, under the supposed rule of Goldman Sachs, I can at least get my telephone connected inside of a year, the trains replace their rolling stock, and we're not crippled by industrial strikes. We don't want to go back to the seventies, nuh-uh.

Amazingly enough when we just had BT you could get your phone connected in less than 1 year.

With regards to trains :

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ef8990e-3b68-11e5-8613-07d16aad2152.html#axzz4EYxTPUht

According to the Rebuilding Rail Report, the cost of running the railways has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation, from £2.4 billion during the five year period 1990-95 to around £5.4 billion per year during 2005–10.

http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/120630_Rebuilding_Rail_Final_Report_print_version.pdf

https://weownit.org.uk/evidence/privatisation-has-failed-our-railways

Our research, carried out with Corporate Watch, has found that we could save £352 million by bringing the railways into public ownership - £13 per UK household (infographic). These savings are based on the lower borrowing costs for government-financed investment, and the elimination of shareholders dividends. The Rebuilding Rail Report further factors in the costs associated with the fragmentation of services and keeping Network Rail’s debt off the government balance sheet, bringing the cost of privatisation to an estimated £1.2 billion - enough to fund an 18% cut in rail fares.

Since the cost of running the railways cannot be met by passenger fares alone, the government pays billions of pounds in subsidy to the train operating companies. However, much of this public subsidy doesn’t even reach the railways, but goes straight to shareholders. For example, between 1997 and 2012 on the West Coast Mainline, Virgin Trains paid out a total of £500 million in dividends, having received a direct subsidy of £2.5 billion.

As the train operating companies are private firms, they have a legal duty to maximise their profits for shareholders, rather than put passengers first. The five largest private train companies received almost £3 billion in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of £504 million, over90% of which was paid out in dividends to shareholders. In our present system, private companies can make millions of pounds of profit every year, whilst depending on public subsidy and investment. This situation is understandably unpopular. Indeed, the argument found most persuasive by those who want the railways in public ownership is that railways should be accountable to taxpayers rather than shareholders.

As corporate profit have increased, so have fares for passengers. Since privatisation, the average price of a train journey has increased by 22% in real terms. The price of season tickets on some commuter routes is regulated to prevent large above-inflation rises, so this headline figure disguises the fact that walk-on tickets onsome routes have been hiked by 245%! This has left Britain with rail fares that are nearly twice as expensive as France, Germany, Italy and Spain. In January 2015 train fares rose by 5% on some routes, taking the overall increase since 2010 to 24.7% - far outstripping increases in wages. A recent YouGov poll found that 47% of the public that support public ownership of our railways believe it would bring down fares.

The sell off of our railways has also failed to deliver increased investment in rail infrastructure. Lack of private investment means the average age of trains is higher than it was in 1996, and any investments are usually underwritten by the government - evidenced by the electrification of the West Coast Mainline. And whilst there has been a 60% increase in rail passengers since 1994/95, there has only been a 3 per cent increase in new carriages, causing in serious overcrowding on many routes.

In Scotland, responsibility for letting rail franchises is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In October 2014 the ten-year franchise was awarded to Abellio, wholly owned by the Dutch government, despite calls to suspend the tendering process in light of promised new powers for Holyrood. Scotrail is the second most subsidised franchise in the UK, and rail union RMT have estimated that dividends paid to shareholders have forced fares up by around 7%. The Co-op Party and train drivers’ union Aslef have set out a vision for a publicly owned Scottish rail network, with co-operative principles, and a commitment to community benefit and customer service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36802235

etc etc.

Claiming the privitaisation of the railways is in any way better -- unless you're a shareholder in company X/Y/Z , ism frankly a joke.

And whilst we are indeed not crippled by industrial strikes you've entirely we have of course seen waves of strikes from every level of the educational sector as well as in the NHS and the like as well.

**Kilkrazy**

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f17e9dc-4a84-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab.html#axzz4EZ0y43x4

Southern Railways has had to modify its timetable to cancel 326 trains a day due to disruption caused by construction work and an ongoing dispute with RMT staff who have been using high levels of calling in sick to register their disagreement with company policies.

**Ketara**

Silent Puffin? wrote:

Should he win the leadership election, and I see no reason why he won't, the PLP will have to fall broadly in line behind him or form their own breakaway party which will probably have a short shelf life; they have no other choice.

Or they could just, ignore him and hope he crashes and burns at the next election whilst paying lip service.

The unions will not be "controlling him", they will of course be influencing him and he will be ideologically close to their position anyway but as I said earlier the same can be said for the hard right Tories and the City.

When Goldman Sachs puts it's own candidates up to take control of local Tory parties and is singlehandedly keeping in the Tory leader in spite of the PTP, again, we can talk. I know you want to link the two, but they're really not analogous.

Labour would need to win a general election before they can form a government which would need a pro Corbyn PLP who would have been voted in in a GE.

I don't think it would happen anyway, but I am exceedingly wary of the Unions have so much control over Labour, especially if they reach Government. I believe it unlikely, but not impossible. If you are comfortable with the prospect, then I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

reds8n wrote:

Claiming the privitaisation of the railways is in any way better -- unless you're a shareholder in company X/Y/Z , ism frankly a joke.

And whilst we are indeed not crippled by industrial strikes you've entirely we have of course seen waves of strikes from every level of the educational sector as well as in the NHS and the like as well.

'Better' is a bad way of putting it, and certainly not the one I would choose. The exact statement I made was that the trains had new rolling stock now. Which they do. The railways were chronically underinvested when they were nationalised before, they kept engines on well past their sell by date. And I think that having ALL the railways under one central authority and at risk from strikers is /probably inadvisable.

I'm actually not opposed to railway nationalisation, I think it can turn out quite nicely (there was a branch of the local railways which had their franchise confiscated quite recently and did well). A mix of the two approaches is probably best. There's a certain parallel in munitons manufacturing, if you keep a Government owned facility operating, it lets you keep an eye on prices and gives you a base of expertise to expand from/draw upon if one of the other suppliers needs ousting and replacing. If the Government made sure to reserve one or two franchises for themselves (not necessarily always the same ones), used that as a baseline for monitoring the private franchises, and were willing to confiscate them in cases of gross inefficiency like this SW dispute running right now (I'm on the side of the Union workers on that one), it would probably work quite well.

With re: medical and educational sector strikes, I'm on the workers side for those as well for the most part. I'm actually quite pro-Unions. I just don't like the idea of them wielding extensive political power.

**A Town Called Malus**

Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f17e9dc-4a84-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab.html#axzz4EZ0y43x4

Southern Railways has had to modify its timetable to cancel 326 trains a day due to disruption caused by construction work and an ongoing dispute with RMT staff who have been using high levels of calling in sick to register their disagreement with company policies.

Also, from what I have heard from some of the train staff so take with a hefty dose of salt, a large part of that particular problem is that apparently Southern brought in a policy which blocked people from being able to work overtime. As it turns out their whole timetable relied on people working overtime so they ended up with the problem of conductors getting off the trains halfway through the route as their shift had ended and the train being unable to continue as it didn't have the necessary staff.

**Ketara**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Also, from what I have heard from some of the train staff, a large part of that particular problem is that apparently Southern brought in a policy which blocked people from being able to work overtime. As it turns out their whole timetable relied on people working overtime so they ended up with the problem of conductors getting off the trains halfway through the route as their shift had ended and the train being unable to continue as it didn't have the necessary staff.

Southern is playing games because it wants to bring in conductor-less trains. They've pledged not to fire any conductors, but they'll naturally be planning on shifting them to other posts and then quietly shedding staff for five years until their wage bill has been slashed by a third. The Union is naturally opposed because less staff means less Union strength. I personally think it's a bloody stupid idea because having a guard on board is very handy when one needs advice or direction, and for general security and safety purposes.

They should confiscate SW's bloody frachise already.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Conductor less trains? How the feth are they going to enforce fares then?

I don't use trains regularly anymore, but I used to use them weekly when I was at Uni. There used to be Conductors who'd come along with a little hand held ticket machine, and you could pay for a ticket there and then on the train with cash or a cash card. Whenever I was in a hurry and didn't have time to queue for a ticket (only one booth out of three was ever operating), I'd board the train with the intention of paying the Conductor. But by the end of my three years, it was rare for there to be a Conductor.

I'd have boarded a train with every intention of paying for a ticket when the guy came to collect, but ended up getting a free £7 train journey.

**Compel**

Pay banners at every entrance and exit along the route I'd assume.

London does it with the docklands light railway thanks to the oyster card.

But yeah I'm not a fan of the the idea for the whole safety aspect of it. - Guy keels over with a heart attack, noone gets on that carriage, who is going to notice?

However it is technically feasible. Especially when you're telling about routes timewise that aren't much longer then the DLR. Longer journeys they'll never people wandering through trying to sell you stuff anyways.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Compel wrote:
Pay banners at every entrance and exit along the route I'd assume.

Not at the two stations I travelled back and forth between. One station along the route had that, but I rarely used that station, except when my train was passing through. I haven't used that train in a long time, but to the best of my knowledge it hasn't changed.

Longer journeys they'll never people wandering through trying to sell you stuff anyways.

I experienced that in Paris, on the trains and at the Eiffel Tower and the Champ de Mars. Couldn't go 10 feet without having some Romanian petition shoved in my face or black guys trying to grab my wrist and show me their little gimmicks, or guys on the trains trying to flog us stuff.

**Silent Puffin?**

Ketara wrote:

I know you want to link the two, but they're really not analogous.

They are though, its just that the Labour party and the Unions are openly aligned due to their historical links. Do you honestly believe that the City doesn't have considerable pull with the Tories?

**Ketara**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Conductor less trains? How the feth are they going to enforce fares then?

People jump fares all the time anyway, and I daresay the conductors only ever catch a small proportion of them (say, 5-10%). If you assume that those people are going to all be jumping trains whether you have conductors or not, you have to balance say, half of that lost revenue in caught jumpers (because they'll still have teams of conductors and travel police boaridng and leaving trains or setting up temporary checkpoints to catch jumpers for that purpose) against the wage bill of a conductor on every train, I assume there is a vast, vast saving to be made. If a basic Conductor costs £25,000 a year and you have one on every train and a thousand trains running a day, think of high that wage bill is. If you can shed that many staff, your profits would go through the roof to the tune of millions. Against those sorts of figures, a handful of teenagers and students jumping fares that you were never going to get anyway on trains you have to run anyway, are no contest.

Silent Puffin? wrote:

They are though, its just that the Labour party and the Unions are openly aligned due to their historical links. Do you honestly believe that the City doesn't have considerable pull with the Tories?

There's having influence, and then having control. It's the difference between a co-worker and a boss.

Right now, the Unions have influence. They contribute large sums of money, and are well represented in the NEC and left wing community. That's fine, and good. I like that. But I don't want Corbyn essentially beholden to them to be able to pass legislation and being used as a puppet in the event of him reaching power. That would demean democracy.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Conductors earn £25,000 a year?

**Ketara**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Conductors earn £25,000 a year?

I guessed £25,000 as an average sort of salary for the UK. A quick google shows the wage scale varies from £15,000-£28,000, but overtime is usually available if they want to earn more.

**Compel**

Which kind of goes to the start of the discussion, certain train companies no longer allowing Conductors overtime.

And, incidentally, now I'm back to being grumpy with how much I make in comparison to them.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Owen Smith on the Andrew Marr show this morning:

He wants to spend £200 billion on renewing Trident, then he wants to scrap it sometime down the line...

Sweet mother of God...

Please Mods, let me swear...this has to be the most stupidest bat gak insane idea I have heard in years...

This man wants to be Labour leader, and one day PM of the UK...

In the name of holy gak, what has happened to the political class in the UK?

I need to lie down in a darkened room...

Kill me now...

**angelofvengeance**

Lol! £200bn renewing Trident and then scrap it? What an idiot!

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Lol what? Own Smith, the "ex-CND member"?

So much for principles.

**Whirlwind**

Interesting article on JC and that basically that there is a definite play by the media to degrade him as a politician in the publics eye.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.html

Not that this is a surprise as the media is controlled by a few very wealthy individuals that have no interest in a left wing more social agenda. At some point the media is going to have to be legislated to ensure it proves balanced coverage as at the moment we can massive front page articles that deliberately mislead the public and then post apologies in tiny writing on a page no one is going to read after the event such as the attached

As for the nationalising rail networks its not such a bad idea anymore to make more effective services. A lot of things publicly owned in the 80/90's were simply more expensive as private companies could provide the same service cheaper as they didn't have to provide all the benefits the state would have to. However these state benefits have now all been eroded to point where in fact they are similar or less beneficial than the private sector provide (for example access to private healthcare etc). On top of this the private sector want to make a 15-20% profit on everything they do. So in reality state run operations now have the ability to operate these services much more cost effectively (for the same service) for the consumers. The real risk to state run operations is what I consider "sticky fingers" where basically politicians don't like something and therefore feel the need to change because of their electorate. That then means the operations get tied up with ever less efficient modes of operation because that is what the MP of the day wants. In my view the best method of operation would be for the state to award a contract on a similar basis to a state owned business with an aim of limiting the overall profit but still act like it is a business. So for example if you nationalised the energy services the state companies remit would be to make a profit of say £0.5billion that is fed straight back to the government to support new infrastructure whilst ensuring that the service is still efficient whilst not hammering the average consumer for the benefit of shareholders that may have no real interest in the Country. The French have the right idea for example EDF are mostly (completely?) owned by the French state, which in effect means they profit from our energy needs.

**Compel**

If I ruled the world....

I would make it a rule that every correction an dretraction a newspaper makes (and they would *have* to make them if proven demonstrably false), would have to be made in the same text size and font as the original article...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

angelofvengeance wrote:
Lol! £200bn renewing Trident and then scrap it? What an idiot!

He seems to think that if we scrap our nuclear deterrent, the rest of the world will follow our example...

considering we only have 0.7% of the world's stockpile of nuclear warlords, it's either a bold move, or operation insanity...

Would a sensible person not say let's not spend the money on them in the first place?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Lol what? Own Smith, the "ex-CND member"?

So much for principles.

Smith's up there with Jeremy 'nuclear subs without nuclear warheads' Corbyn...

what a pair of buffoons.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Owen Smith on the Andrew Marr show this morning:

He wants to spend £200 billion on renewing Trident, then he wants to scrap it sometime down the line...

Sweet mother of God...

Please Mods, let me swear...this has to be the most stupidest bat gak insane idea I have heard in years...

You are completely taking it out of context. What he is saying is that he supports world disarmament of nuclear weapons but that it has to be done as a global initiative. However given current world insecurities (Rogue states, China and Russia making land grabs etc) with each other doing it right now might be a bad thing (although on the other hand as a country you can make a stand and fully disarm and then challenge others why they still need them, after all you can always argue that the only use of Nuclear weapons is for mass murder on potentially millions of people that are not responsible for their direct governments actions, but that's another debate). Hence we need them now, but globally push to not need them in the future (and also that is easier for us as we only hire, maybe with a refund if returned unused, the nukes from the US). That can't be a bad thing surely?