Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    (union leaders get paid during strikes, union members don't)
    Strike pay?

    There was a lot of entryism from the hard left in the unions and the labour party in that period, which no one ever seems to mention here.
    A lot? Three MPs in the entire parliamentary labour party? One local council in the entire country (Liverpool)? By no stretch of the English language could that be called "a lot".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Just look at how 10 years of a Labour Government didn't revoke Thatcher's Anti-Trade Union Legislation to see how out of control Labour had let it get.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gallifreyan95)
    Just look at how 10 years of a Labour Government didn't revoke Thatcher's Anti-Trade Union Legislation to see how out of control Labour had let it get.

    Exactly what anti trade union legislation did thatcher introduce other than a secret ballot so the trade unions had to act in a democratic manner
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    It's a socialist organisation? That must be why free trade and privatisation of state industries is written into its very DNA :^_^:
    Free trade, lol. How quaint! The EU is a political union masquerading as a free trade organisation, indeed it was written into the Treaty of Rome that member states would commit themselves to the goal of "ever closer union", this implies a heck of a lot more than the simple of absence of import tariffs and other such restrictions. It implies federalism.



    Except that only workers at the very bottom of the labour market can be replaced at the drop of a hat. Of course, you're always going to scapegoat immigrants, rather than admit complicity in the ongoing attack on unions.

    Just like foxholes and atheists, everyone becomes pro-union when they receive a redundancy notice.
    Actually the Labour party in their 1983 manifesto called for a withdrawal from the EEC because they wanted parliament to be soley responsible for protecting workers' rights (not some distant, unaccountable foreign organisation), and because they were worried about the enonomic impact of mass immigration for those at the bottom.

    I suppose in your eyes this made Labour a party of racist Little Englanders?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Free trade, lol. How quaint! The EU is a political union masquerading as a free trade organisation, indeed it was written into the Treaty of Rome that member states would commit themselves to the goal of "ever closer union", this implies a heck of a lot more than the simple of absence of import tariffs and other such restrictions. It implies federalism
    And how does federalism imply socialism? Socialism is social or government ownership of the means of production. This is close to impossible under EU rules on state aid. So I ask again, how is it a socialist organisation?

    Actually the Labour party in their 1983 manifesto called for a withdrawal from the EEC because they wanted parliament to be soley responsible for protecting workers' rights
    And yet you blame the Labour Party for everything EU related, when it was Conservatives who took us in.

    I suppose in your eyes this made Labour a party of racist Little Englanders?
    No. The people who are racist little Englanders are the ones who suddenly purport to become the workers best friend when it comes to immigration but will happily support and applaud any measure or attack on their pay and working conditions (such as diluting unfair dismissal laws, weakening collective redundancy consultation requirements, undermining the minimum wage, and so on)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. I think they were. My step-dad was a miner and towards the last 5 years of his working life (shortly after Thatcher came into power) he was always on strike. We weren't getting a wage and it was tough but the strikes continued. I can remember my dad cursing the Communists in the NUM were stirring up trouble. Anyone remember Arthur Scargill? He was a member of the CPGB.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Yes. I think they were. My step-dad was a miner and towards the last 5 years of his working life (shortly after Thatcher came into power) he was always on strike. We weren't getting a wage and it was tough but the strikes continued. I can remember my dad cursing the Communists in the NUM were stirring up trouble. Anyone remember Arthur Scargill? He was a member of the CPGB.
    My objection to this narrative is that there are many who take the (largely true) premise that the unions had gone off the reservation in the 1970s and 1980s and use that as a bat to hit the union movement over and over again.

    Yes, Scargill was a traitor and he should have been imprisoned. Not only was he a revolutionary and a communist, we now know he was in the pay of the Soviet Union.

    All this does not mean that unions have no place, or that one can be ungrateful for all the increases in pay, conditions and working rights that unions have obtained in concert with the Labour Party.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    And how does federalism imply socialism? Socialism is social or government ownership of the means of production. This is close to impossible under EU rules on state aid. So I ask again, how is it a socialist organisation?
    Lefties like to use this narrow, outdated definition of socialism to deflect criticism away from statist power grabs. More widely socialism/collectivism manifests itself in the transfer of power from the individual to the state. As the EU is an organisation that is designed to shift power away from the electorate into the hands of an aloof supra-national elite it is inherently socialist in outlook. Look at the way the EU rode roughshod over the French, Dutch and Irish No votes to the shabby EU constitution/Lisbon Treaty for example. This was inevitable, because EU officials want to push through measures that will serve themelves rather than the people they supposedly represent.



    And yet you blame the Labour Party for everything EU related, when it was Conservatives who took us in.
    No, I blame Labour for their open door policy to the whole of Eastern Europe. Laws are easily reversed, mass immigration isn't.

    No. The people who are racist little Englanders are the ones who suddenly purport to become the workers best friend when it comes to immigration but will happily support and applaud any measure or attack on their pay and working conditions (such as diluting unfair dismissal laws, weakening collective redundancy consultation requirements, undermining the minimum wage, and so on)
    Who exactly are you talking about, because this description fits no party I'm aware of. Take UKIP for example, while their policy on the EU would protect domestic workers from the wage-eroding threat of mass immigration they'd also like to see the personal allowance raised to £12,000 to allow those on the NMW to earn their wages tax free. How does that constitute an attack on the poor and vulnerable? I think you're strawmanning tbh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Lefties like to use this narrow, outdated definition of socialism to deflect criticism away from statist power grabs.
    Or more likely, right-wingers hate that question because shows their criticisms for the baseless rants they are.

    More widely socialism/collectivism manifests itself in the transfer of power from the individual to the state.
    And yet, it is socialists and centre-leftists who have been responsible for great transfers of power from the state to the individual. For example, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, reform of divorce laws and extending the voting franchise.

    Look at the way the EU rode roughshod over the French, Dutch and Irish.
    You seem to be drifting, and your argument is not very clear. Why exactly should I be defending the EU? As I point out, it's a neoliberal organisation so its dismissal of democracy is entirely expected. And it's entirely consistent that it was the Conservative Party that took us into the EU, and Thatcher government who passed the Single European Act.

    No, I blame Labour for their open door policy to the whole of Eastern Europe. Laws are easily reversed, mass immigration isn't.
    Wow. A whole 8% of the population are immigrants. Catastrophy!

    How does that constitute an attack on the poor and vulnerable?
    From UKIP's own website

    UKIP would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays and holiday, overtime, redundancy or sick pay etc. and provide a statutory, standard, very short employment contract template.

    I think you're strawmanning tbh
    I don't think you know what you're talking about. Again, you're unable to demonstrate exactly how the EU is supposed to be a socialist organisation. You throw out a lot of buzz words like "lefties", "statist power grab", but I very much doubt you have something approaching an understanding of the underlying concept.

    Tell me, where did you obtain your political education?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Or more likely, right-wingers hate that question because shows their criticisms for the baseless rants they are.
    Because we've thankfully moved beyond the era of nationalised industry socialism, apparently, is no longer a suitable topic for debate. Would you prefer it if I used the term statism instead? The difference is purely sematic of course because the people who support proper socialism are the exact same ones who are in love with the concept of the EU and believe in the inherent goodness of state interference.



    And yet, it is socialists and centre-leftists who have been responsible for great transfers of power from the state to the individual. For example, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, reform of divorce laws and extending the voting franchise.
    No they havn't, you're talking rubbish. The conservative Peer Lord Arran was integral to the Sexual Offences Bill that ended the criminalisation of homosexuality, and the age of consent was lowered to 18 in 1994 under a Conservative administration. Furthermore the Great Reform Act was passed in 1832, 70 years before Labour even existed. So how were the centre-left responsible for the things you mention? You're just guessing.

    You seem to be drifting, and your argument is not very clear. Why exactly should I be defending the EU? As I point out, it's a neoliberal organisation so its dismissal of democracy is entirely expected. And it's entirely consistent that it was the Conservative Party that took us into the EU, and Thatcher government who passed the Single European Act.
    Hold on, so those who oppose the EU are 'racists' but you oppose the EU on the grounds that it's a neoliberal organisation. Are you in favour of mass immigration but also anti-EU? It's the only way to square the circle. The Maastrict Treaty nearly split the Conservatives back in the early 1990's because many prominent Tories including the likes of Iain Duncan Smith were sceptics and therefore furious with Major's pro-European agenda. Indeed the media love the whole 'Europe splits Tories' angle which suggests that it's still an extremely contentious issue, Labour on the other hand are absolutely wedded to our EU membership because you're average Labour MP cares more about money than principles and they want to climb aboad the EU's gravy train.

    Wow. A whole 8% of the population are immigrants. Catastrophy
    3/4 million migrants arrived under New Labour, a level of peacetime migration that has almost no historical precedent. Thanks to the EU we're now going suffer another bout of unwanted mass immigration from Bulgaria and Romania in January at a time when youth unemployment is rocketing. We don't need any more immigrants right now but the EU is relentless in it's pursuit of the destruction of British culture. This is a catastrophe.


    From UKIP's own website
    UKIP would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays and holiday, overtime, redundancy or sick pay etc. and provide a statutory, standard, very short employment contract template.
    These are all good ideas, we need to streamline the economy and make it more dynamic to get ourselves into a position where we're able to compete in the global marketplace again. It will also make it easier for workers to start their own businesses and escape the clutches of their capitalist overlords because it would lower the financial burden of company ownership, but being a lefty I suppose aspiration is something you're against?

    I don't think you know what you're talking about. Again, you're unable to demonstrate exactly how the EU is supposed to be a socialist organisation. You throw out a lot of buzz words like "lefties", "statist power grab", but I very much doubt you have something approaching an understanding of the underlying concept.

    Tell me, where did you obtain your political education?
    The EU started out as a Coal and Steel organisation and it slowly evolved into an organisation that took it upon itself to regulate the curvature of vegetables (this wasn't a Daily Mail myth contrary to popular belief), yet I'm supposed to swallow the argument that this doesn't represent a shift of power away from national democracy into the hands of an international elite.

    Just what planet are you living on?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Because we've thankfully moved beyond the era of nationalised industry socialism, apparently, is no longer a suitable topic for debate. Would you prefer it if I used the term statism instead? The difference is purely sematic of course because the people who support proper socialism are the exact same ones who are in love with the concept of the EU and believe in the inherent goodness of state interference
    I have two words that basically completely refutes your silly argument.
    Tony Benn.

    I'd say you rather have egg on your face.

    you're talking rubbish The conservative Peer Lord Arran was integral to the Sexual Offences Bill that ended the criminalisation of homosexuality
    If the Conservatives were so much in favour of it, why didn't they move it when they were in government?

    Furthermore the Great Reform Act was passed in 1832, 70 years before Labour even existed. So how were the centre-left responsible for the things you mention? You're just guessing.
    The Reform Act 1832 enfranchised about 1/5th of the male population. The Reform Act 1867 doubled that. It was only after the Labour Party came into being, with all the concomitant pressure exerted by socialists and Fabians, that you saw a government finally extend the franchise to the entire male population in 1919.

    But please, go on believing that universal male suffrage was introduced in 1832.

    Hold on, so those who oppose the EU are 'racists' but you oppose the EU on the grounds that it's a neoliberal organisation. Are you in favour of mass immigration but also anti-EU?
    I'm against a free market of labour with A8 and A2 countries, and in favour of a Western European Union.

    3/4 million migrants arrived under New Labour, a level of peacetime migration that has almost no historical precedent.
    Almost nothing in the 20th and 21st century had historical precedent. Giving women the right to vote didn't have historical precedent. Decriminalising homosexuality didn't have recent historical precedent (much like immigration... no recent historical precedent).

    4 million immigrants out of a population of around 60 million is hardly sizeable. Or do you object that every 15th or so person you encounter is a foreigner?

    Thanks to the EU we're now going suffer another bout of unwanted mass immigration from Bulgaria and Romania in January at a time when youth unemployment is rocketing.
    I agree. The Tories are completely irresponsible not to do something about it.

    We don't need any more immigrants right now but the EU is relentless in it's pursuit of the destruction of British culture.
    If you sincerely believe that, you probably need some mental health treatment.

    These are all good ideas, we need to streamline the economy and make it more dynamic to get ourselves into a position where we're able to compete in the global marketplace again.
    Typical "race to the bottom" mentality you encounter in those who are least imaginative. In fact, competitiveness has far more to do with technology and productivity than wages and working conditions.

    It will also make it easier for workers to start their own businesses
    How?

    and escape the clutches of their capitalist overlords because it would lower the financial burden of company ownership, but being a lefty I suppose aspiration is something you're against?
    Should I applaud your straw man? You probably truly believe that cutting the pay and conditions of workers is actually a pro-worker policy.

    So if everything is to be based on competition and price, presumably it's fine to choose to buy our trains overseas and make 1000 workers redundant at one time?

    After all, they should welcome the opportunity to start their own business and surely they'll benefit from the reduced taxes they'll have to pay because the government chose a cheaper German train. Right? No?

    The EU started out as a Coal and Steel organisation and it slowly evolved into an organisation that took it upon itself to regulate the curvature of vegetables (this wasn't a Daily Mail myth contrary to popular belief), yet I'm supposed to swallow the argument that this doesn't represent a shift of power away from national democracy into the hands of an international elite.
    That's all very well, but you've completely failed to demonstrate how it is a socialist organisation. The fact that it's not is going to make your task rather Sisyphean.

    You seem to argue with this caricature socialist or leftist that exists only in your fevered imagination.

    Just what planet are you living on?
    Why do you dodge the question about where you went to university?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Strike pay?
    .
    Yes. Strike pay. All of those subs that unions collect off their members not only goes towards paying for the running of the union, but it also allows for the union to pay money toworads their members.

    In the case of the Miners strike, as their was no ballot involved before the strike and they just went on strike, the miners weren't entitled to any form of benefits from the DHS that they were actually entitled to. So in fact their unions screwed them over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Yes. Strike pay. All of those subs that unions collect off their members not only goes towards paying for the running of the union, but it also allows for the union to pay money toworads their members.
    Thank you. I felt it would be worthwhile for you to acknowledge that.

    In the case of the Miners strike, as their was no ballot involved before the strike and they just went on strike, the miners weren't entitled to any form of benefits from the DHS that they were actually entitled to. So in fact their unions screwed them over.
    As far as I know, the NUM is "a" union.

    Are you claiming the actions of the NUM have some bearing on unions generally?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    How is he too powerful? TfL is perfectly welcome to make all the train drivers redundant if they want.
    And then we will have no train drivers, are you stupid or something?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Thank you. I felt it would be worthwhile for you to acknowledge that.



    As far as I know, the NUM is "a" union.

    Are you claiming the actions of the NUM have some bearing on unions generally?
    The seeds of the minors strike was sown in the 70s. By far the most powerful Trade Union was that of the miners. They had a habit of coming out in support of other unions. And their actions were indicative of the other unions, except the NUM was by far the largest and most powerful. So basically, a study of the NUM can be seen as a study of the majority of trade unions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. Arthur Scargill and his cronies screwed over the working class in this country almost as much as Thatcher (who definitely did a lot wrong). Callaghan himself said that if he was a young man, he would emigrate in the late 70's. A lot of working class people suffered all around the country (including my own family). No gas, no heating country shutting down. Not able to work as long as you wanted to get the wages you needed. The unions needed to be taken on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    And then we will have no train drivers, are you stupid or something?
    So what's the problem then? You need train drivers, and if you want it badly enough then you'll pay what they demand, or pay to upgrade the system to be automated.

    Of course, free market (misnomer, of course; monopoly market) adherents are always in favour of freedom to set ones prices at whatever level they choose.... except when it's a group of workers choosing to set the price of their labour at a particular level.

    Hypocrite, much?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    So basically, a study of the NUM can be seen as a study of the majority of trade unions.
    Is that how logic works wherever you're going to university? Where are you going to university, out of interest?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soul of Mischief)
    The unions needed to be taken on.
    So all unions were behaving unreasonably? All of them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I have two words that basically completely refutes your silly argument.
    Tony Benn.
    I'd say you rather have egg on your face.
    What are you talking about?


    If the Conservatives were so much in favour of it, why didn't they move it when they were in government?
    I don't know, I just wanted to refute the often-made claim that the left are responsible for every sensible piece of equality legislation on the statute books. It's utter garbage that falls apart as an argument the moment you check out the historical facts.


    The Reform Act 1832 enfranchised about 1/5th of the male population. The Reform Act 1867 doubled that. It was only after the Labour Party came into being, with all the concomitant pressure exerted by socialists and Fabians, that you saw a government finally extend the franchise to the entire male population in 1919.

    But please, go on believing that universal male suffrage was introduced in 1832.
    You're teetering on the verge of delusion by claiming the 1918 Representation of the People Act constitutes a victory for the left when it was passed by a liberal/conservative coalition. Is there any piece of progressive social reform Labour weren't responsible for, lol?


    I'm against a free market of labour with A8 and A2 countries, and in favour of a Western European Union.
    Fair enough. I would go with that.

    Almost nothing in the 20th and 21st century had historical precedent. Giving women the right to vote didn't have historical precedent. Decriminalising homosexuality didn't have recent historical precedent (much like immigration... no recent historical precedent).

    4 million immigrants out of a population of around 60 million is hardly sizeable. Or do you object that every 15th or so person you encounter is a foreigner?
    I don't object to foreigners as individuals. What I object to is the mass colonisation of British towns and cities by foreign communities who have no intention of integrating because they're not familiar with the Western-liberal script. The modern left are intent on destroying the social fabric of this country because they're so consumed with our colonial heritage, white guilt and the notion of wicked 'western privilege' (because it supposedly comes at the expense of vulnerable 3rd worlders). These are issues that need addressing certainly, but not with mass immigration.


    I agree. The Tories are completely irresponsible not to do something about it.
    Indeed. This is why you should go out and vote for UKIP.


    Typical "race to the bottom" mentality you encounter in those who are least imaginative. In fact, competitiveness has far more to do with technology and productivity than wages and working conditions.
    As usual you're only looking at one side of the equation. I don't what this "template" would contain but lets assume that we did abolish statutory entitlements to holiday pay and redundancy pay, would this mean holiday pay would become a thing of the past? No. Just as the majority of employers choose to pay above the minimum wage many if not all of them would choose to keep holiday pay to attract the best employees. Even if it was phased out the upshot would be a bit less red tape making it easier to start a business. So I ask you again, why are you anti-aspiration? Don't you want the poor using their talents to start a business and pocket a few quid for themselves? Of course you don't.



    Should I applaud your straw man? You probably truly believe that cutting the pay and conditions of workers is actually a pro-worker policy.

    Missing the point. I don't want worker wage-slaves, I'd prefer it if more people enjoyed the opportunity to opt-out of the daily grind by starting up their own business. One way to do this would be to abolish a lot of the regulation that currently deters new capital formation.


    So if everything is to be based on competition and price, presumably it's fine to choose to buy our trains overseas and make 1000 workers redundant at one time?

    After all, they should welcome the opportunity to start their own business and surely they'll benefit from the reduced taxes they'll have to pay because the government chose a cheaper German train. Right? No?
    That's not a very good example. I worked for a company that supplied Bombardier with electrical cables and I was effectively made redundant because the gov't decided to procure trains and carriages from overseas. I didn't complain, I found another job instead. The economy moves on and evolves, get over it. I did.


    That's all very well, but you've completely failed to demonstrate how it is a socialist organisation. The fact that it's not is going to make your task rather Sisyphean.

    The EU believes it has the right to meddle with anything it pleases: from animal rights, to the environment to equal pay between the sexes, classic lefty territory. This might not be socialism in the purest sense but it's most definitely statism and the two are interlinked.


    Why do you dodge the question about where you went to university?
    It's irrelevent. Debate the points don't focus on personal information. It's very rude.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.