Do you know who I am

[Grasshopper]

And how many times did you go on strike? and for how long?

A union is essentially a union of people, it's only as strong as its membership. If they aren't prepared to fight and back up the sentiment then management can pretty well laugh in their face. I remember someone coming to me once asking for hardship payment from the Union funds because she'd be required to strike for just one day. I tried explaining that this was a fund set aside for genuine hardship in the face of sustaining an action, and not an inconvenience. She then got all arsey and tried to make out I was denying her access to the fund etc Obviously I gave her the form, she applied, and the application was rejected

There's a lot of people who expect their union to go in and secure deals for them, whilst their own membership ties both hands behind their backs. Very few unions ever made any gains without having to take some pain along the way, and even then, there's no such thing as a guaranteed result.

I'd happily wager that Grasshoppers union has never been on strike for more than 24 hours, because it wasn't an industrial union where there is a much stronger culture of sticking it out, and they all ran back to work the moment they realised they couldn't afford the extra bottle of sancere on the Mound on a Friday

It's a sign of the times if anything that the trade unions biggest weapon now isn't their membership, but rather European law, which for me at least is the most compelling argument for staying in Europe. American's bear arms to protect themselves against their own government's excesses, we need to bear Europe to protect ourselves against the Tories, and what frankly evil and cruel things they would visit on us otherwise. As Teresa May once said, they're the "nasty party"

Your problem is that you live in a world where you'd like everything to be like Bucharest c1973.

I, however, live in the real world.

 

[Warbler]

I'll try and get back with a fuller response later Clive, as there's a lot of ground to cover there, but you're badly off beam.

You might like to check out the annual new housebuild stats incidentally going back to the 1920's before you start chipping away about the supply side. You might recall that David Cameron often lambasted Gordon brown at the last election for having the lowest number of new builds in history. Guess what. Cameron's beaten him. He abolsihed the RDA's and with it about 250,000 new houses that were being planned in the target driven RES's were abolished at a stroke. Also new build in itself isn't necessarily the right measure as it assumes a static state. Demographics are fluid so you need to build above the level of incoming populations and new household formation. You can only massage this issue for so long by indulging things like stock transfers and then having them reaccounted. At the end of the day, you need the new homes.

I should point out actually that Gordon Brown was about the only Labour politician who tried to do anything about this on an ambitious scale when tried to build 16 'expansion towns', so called 'Brown towns' or 'eco-towns'. Every single one of them ran into NIMBY objectors led by Conservatives. Indeed, David Cameron himself was seminal in lending his support to his good friend Tony Henman (Tim's dad) for the one proposed in Oxfordshire.

Anyone who has ever worked in this area can see there is a evry strong argument for a fourth generation of new towns to be built, but the problem isn't with the planners (they tend to be in favour) in terms of organised opposition it's actually the Conservative party egged on by the CPRE and Daily Telegraph who ran a years long camapign against it. With supreme irony of course (having cancelled just about every bloody one of them!) the Tories recently (having spent the 3-4 years studying the issue) finally realised they were wrong all along and now making noises about Ebbsfleet new towm. Let's give this some context though. Gordon Brown proposed this circa 2008, it's taken the UK seven years to get absolutely no where. This has got nothing to do with planning. That is frankly a really meek excuse. The biggest culprits are the conservative party of Great Britain, they're the "enemy within". They're the biggest bad guys, the blockers, and the obstructionists in all of this, and they've mad eit even harder now by introducing the Localsim Bill and handing local communities a very powerful tool with which to oppose any new builds. They are the party that appeases Nimby's rather than taking the tought decisions in the national interest. Let's not forget also (as its on the same theme) how much they've added to the cost of HS2 by tunnelling through their own constituencies, and lets' see how much franking in Surrey and Sussex ever comes to fruition on their watch shall we?

The bottom line here is that our banks are still heavily exposed in their mortgage books and wouldn't sustain another a mark down. The government had the choice to burn its people or burn its banks and decided to burn the people, or more precisely a generation of young people who are being wilfully shafted by an older generation who will then expect them to pay a lot more tax to pay their pensions for them, having raped the North Sea in their own life time to provide an artificially high level of income that their skills set and productivity wouldn't merit otherwise. Contrast our position with that Norway. If the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund was liquidated tomorrow, everyone of them would be a millionaire. These same young people have of course had property pushed beyond their reach, and are then being locked into a relationship similar to that enjoyed by the Morlocks over the Eloi, as one generation feeds off another. It's not restricted to tax and housing though, you can see it in education too. The youngsters of today are being made to pay and go into crippling debts by a generation who consumed the same product for free. You'll see the same thing in environemental policy as one generation back passes the shite to another whilst ensuring that they take out more than they put in

I think your suggestion that the tax cuts have driven the economy is too simplistic as well without looking at what areas have benefited by way of consumer spending decisions. The simple fact is we've been using North Sea oil revenues to help drive the economies of Japan, China, and Germany. We've effectively traded lifestyle for legacy.

The UK's issues are multitudinous but our failure to export is seminal to that. We've reached a stage now where we need other countries to pay our debts off for us, but because we make over-priced low qualify crap that no one wants, we'll struggle to do so. For too long we've generated an artificial bubble based around property, and this has allowed income into economy that wasn't really being earned. The problem now is we've pushed housing beyond a whole a generation and locked them into a rental dependency they can't escape from. Tax cuts aren't a weapon any longer either. Landlords rents are the biggest drain on household incomes now.

I'm convinced its a big part of the can't be arsed culture of Cameron's broken Britain. You go out and work hard, only to surredner an ever bigger pile of your own shrinking pay packet to a landlord every month

Warblers world will of course put this right

 

[clivex]

why would it be at the tax payers expense..where's all that money gone from sale of council houses?

who else is going to fund the subsidised public housing?

 

[clivex]

he bottom line here is that our banks are still heavily exposed in their mortgage books and wouldn't sustain another a mark down. The government had the choice to burn its people or burn its banks and decided to burn the people,

Thats simply wrong. And building a couple of new towns will not send the market downwards anyway. I agree there should be more housebuilding but the nimby issue is the main reason not some conspiracy to protect the banks. No way

I think your suggestion that the tax cuts have driven the economy is too simplistic as well without looking at what areas have benefited by way of consumer spending decisions.

No it isnt. Its not the only reason but tax cuts drive an economy. There is no doubt about that at all

 

[Warbler]

Your problem is that you live in a world where you'd like everything to be like Bucharest c1973.

I, however, live in the real world.

What an embarrassing answer. Would I be correct to interpret this then as

1: No I've never been on strike, nor have I ever taken any industrial action
2: Neither have I voted to do so, or, (I only voted yes because I knew everyone else would vote no)
3: I wouldn't stay out for more than 24 hours anyway, because I think I'd lose too much money (I live in the real world you see)
4: But I don't mind blaming the unions and moaning about their inability to achieve anything even though I'm not personally prepared to stand alongside them and put myself on the line

If you've fought a dispute and lost Grasshopper then I'd regard your criticisms as worthwhile and heartfelt, but you haven't have you? The bottom line is that you aren't prepared to take any sacrifice are you?

 

[clivex]

The UK's issues are multitudinous but our failure to export is seminal to that. We've reached a stage now where we need other countries to pay our debts off for us, but because we make over-priced low qualify crap that no one wants, we'll struggle to do so.

You are stuck in the 70s warbler. That was the case but emphatically is not the case now

There is also the issue of the "maunfacturing fetish". Why is making things so important? We are largely a service economy (like struggling Switzerland and Singapore) and one of the very best in the world. Advertising, finance, insurance. A few areas where we are absolute world leaders.

But if we are talking about manufacturing, car industry is booming and in pharma and defence we are world leaders again.

 

[Grasshopper]

What an embarrassing answer. Would I be correct to interpret this then as

1: No I've never been on strike, nor have I ever taken any industrial action
2: Neither have I voted to do so, or, (I only voted yes because I knew everyone else would vote no)
3: I wouldn't stay out for more than 24 hours anyway, because I think I'd lose too much money (I live in the real world you see)
4: But I don't mind blaming the unions and moaning about their inability to achieve anything even though I'm not personally prepared to stand alongside them and put myself on the line

If you've fought a dispute and lost Grasshopper then I'd regard your criticisms as worthwhile and heartfelt, but you haven't have you? The bottom line is that you aren't prepared to take any sacrifice are you?

Take it any way you like - I genuinely couldn't give a monkeys.

Clearly little point in engaging any deeper on the subject with someone who clearly has a vested-interest in protecting the good name of Unions - given you've self-evidently been active in one (which also goes some way to explaining why every one of your post drones on about 'Tories').

 

[Warbler]

he bottom line here is that our banks are still heavily exposed in their mortgage books and wouldn't sustain another a mark down. The government had the choice to burn its people or burn its banks and decided to burn the people,

Thats simply wrong. And building a couple of new towns will not send the market downwards anyway. I agree there should be more housebuilding but the nimby issue is the main reason not some conspiracy to protect the banks. No way

Banks had to mark to market about 6 years ago and sustained heavy losses that required write offs as bad lending (nearly always against over inflated property) were put into toxic accounts. They told us they were safe during the credit crunch and transpired to be lying. Right now I'd have my money on them lying again, and that should a 30% deflation occur they'll be right back where they were again. I doubt very much they could mark that level down without incurring a severe hit.

New Towns are part of the solution Clive, they aren't the, solution.

The planners have been chomping at the bit to build these for years, and we aren't short of developers either. The problem has been with the conservative party, conservative local authorities, and conservative voters. Greg Clark should have been tarred and feathered and made to march round Middlesborough for the rest of his life with a sign hanging round his neck saying "I'm a moronic Tory who doesn't understand NIMBYism"

 

[Warbler]

The UK's issues are multitudinous but our failure to export is seminal to that. We've reached a stage now where we need other countries to pay our debts off for us, but because we make over-priced low qualify crap that no one wants, we'll struggle to do so.

You are stuck in the 70s warbler. That was the case but emphatically is not the case now

There is also the issue of the "maunfacturing fetish". Why is making things so important? We are largely a service economy (like struggling Switzerland and Singapore) and one of the very best in the world. Advertising, finance, insurance. A few areas where we are absolute world leaders.

Really? Would you be so good as to spell out what our trade surplus or balance of payments surplus is then?

 

[clivex]

There is no chance at all of a 30% collapse in house prices.

 

[clivex]

Deficit hit a high of 5% earlier this year i recall? That still means we are exporting 95% of what we import. Usually its more like 98%.

But its the margin of exports that is always missed here. You have far higher margins in services than you have in commodities for instance. or low grade manufacturing

 

[Maruco]

Quite frankly the Unions killed themselves, not the Tories. And if you want to blame anyone for breaking the Unions and making them toothless it was the Labour Party under Blair. That said aren't the Labour Party what used to be the Tory Party from the 80's anyway!

Quite frankly I don't know why anyone would pay to be part of a Union these days. If an employer does anything wrong there's a more than adequate legal system that largely favours the employee anyway.

It must be awful being a Socialist, following an outdated idealistic notion in the 21st century.

 

[clivex]

In the past..above lessened over large profits more like

any employee who thinks unions haven't helped them in the last 50 years is seriously deluding themselves imo...terms & conditions have to be negotitiated..they not given by generous employers.

you would have been on zero hours contracts for donkeys years for a start..instead they getting trendy now..in this time of supposed affluence...affluence for the few that is.

I dont like zero hours and often think the law could be tighter on them but affluence for "the few"?

Sorry mate. Its not true. Property owners with equity right across the country are affluent full stop. Thats millions of people. Also anyone owning any property over two bedrooms in a number of london boroughs is close to being a millionaire. A house definitely.

Outside of London? I was in Birmingham on a friday two weeks ago. Huge shopping developments going up in the centre and they were packed. absolutely booming. Manchester is the same and it was a friday not saturday.

Look at football. Sky high prices and yet grounds full every week with waiting lists. Thats a lot of people with heavy disposable income

There are a lot of people who cannot get off basic wages but other than rasing minimum wage (which may be agood idea) and cutting the taxes (which is on the cards) there isnt much anyone can do. you cant force people to pay employees substantially more than they are worth in the market. if you do that then employers will withdraw from the market (british car industry 1980s).

Also a lot of this slips into its "everyone else fault" syndrome. my relatives in the north are lovely people but its all about "they never give us any jobs round here" (bollocks..the town has had loads of investment). How about making something of it yourself? On tne otehr side of the coin ive got two mates from the worst part of the northeast who have travelled around for work and got on with it. They are now wealthy and came from working class backgrounds. not super entrepenuers but certainly done well for themselves. They had no time for complaining and moaning and unions frankly and are scathing about some attitudes.

 

[Warbler]

There is no chance at all of a 30% collapse in house prices.

Yes, but we need a correction of that magnitude brought about by something in the region of half a million new homes being built. Ther eother double whammy to this of course is the amount of additional lending that banks have undertaken secured against these over inflated prices. That would start turning toxic too. There is of course another additional issue and that's the political dividened that the party in power would pay if a managed fall in house prices was stimulated and mr and mrs middle England suddenly saw the value of their pride and joy falling

Right now I certainly prefer the long term prudence shown by the Norweigians ahead of our short term greed

 

[Warbler]

It must be awful being a Socialist, following an outdated idealistic notion in the 21st century.

Not at all, it's fun, but lets not forget that it was good old fashioned state intervention and nationalisation that saved capitalism from itself only a few years ago, or have you forgotten that? How long did the banks have left? "We can possibly last until half past ten" was the answer given to Alistair Darling

 

[Maruco]

The housing market is largely smoke and mirrors. The amount of build and availability controls the market more than any other influence other than wild interest rates hikes. Given the current market there will be no big property price crashes anytime soon.

And on the Mr and Mrs Middle England quote. They buy and sell in a relative market just as any other 'class' does. In some respects Mr and Mrs Middle England could be said to be advantaged if trading up in a falling market, or alternatively have more paper net worth if doing nothing in a rising market.

Those that are smart win, and those that aren't lose. Nothing to do with social status.

The property market for any individual is about patience and timing. Plenty of people make dumb decisions they later regret simply because they don't understand or get bad advice.

 

[Warbler]

Quite frankly I don't know why anyone would pay to be part of a Union these days. If an employer does anything wrong there's a more than adequate legal system that largely favours the employee anyway.

You've actually answered your own question, and it comes back to something I posted a few hours ago about how Unions have increasingly been forced onto legal ground in order to defend their members

In the first case, it's often European law that is stronger than UK law, but which has primacy. The Tories are obviously trying to roll that back, and I daren't think what UKIP would have. This is one of the reasons I still tend to find myself on side with being a member of the EU, simply because I don't trust our own government's and don't want to enter a race to the bottom with Bangladesh

The "adequate" legal system costs money, the trade union offers this to their members free (well sort of free - union subscriptions) you don't pay an additional legal bill. It's also worth noting of course that most packages now extend to non work related legal areas as well. It's true that you will get the 'no win, no fee' merchants chasing any registration made at a tribunal, but there is always a question mark over the capacity that these firms have

 

[Maruco]

Not at all, it's fun, but lets not forget that it was good old fashioned state intervention and nationalisation that saved capitalism from itself only a few years ago, or have you forgotten that? How long did the banks have left? "We can possibly last until half past ten" was the answer given to Alistair Darling

Socialism died when manufacturing died and the UK became one big service industry.

Manufacturing died because UK labour rates don't and can't compete with Socialist nations such as China, Korea, Taiwan, etc.

Labour rates can't compete with China, Korea, and Taiwan because nobody in the UK wants to be paid at slave labour rates.

The Unions died because they wanted to strike for labour rates which put UK businesses into liquidation, or moved them overseas.

It might be fun being a socialist, but Socialsim is an ideal rather than a reality.

State intervention in the respect you mention was nothing to do with a Government wanting to nationalise, it was because of having to nationalise in a set of very unique circumstances. I don't have a poor memory. It's just completely irrelevant!

 

[Maruco]

The "adequate" legal system costs money, the trade union offers this to their members free (well sort of free - union subscriptions) you don't pay an additional legal bill. It's also worth noting of course that most packages now extend to non work related legal areas as well. It's true that you will get the 'no win, no fee' merchants chasing any registration made at a tribunal, but there is always a question mark over the capacity that these firms have

No you've answered your own question when you said 'sort of free'. It's not free at all. It's essentially a savings policy or an insurance policy you pay into ad infinitum in case you get shafted. Only a very small percentage of people actually ever really need this despite what their Union Rep may want to try to stir up.

On the other hand, if I had anything like a worthwhile case I can find lawyers who would queue up to take my case on a no win no fee basis. And if I were that confident I wouldn't need to do that anyway because when the case is found for me I get a ludicrously inflated payout anyway.

Unions are dead in the water, and no reasonably intelligent person who doesn't have a blind spot could reasonably think otherwise.

 

[marbler]

no reasonably intelligent person who doesn't have a blind spot could reasonably think otherwise.

Dead in the water? Tell that to the people picketing outside hospital buildings in the NHS.
Essentially you're saying the unions can be outsourced, which is fair enough but there is always strength in numbers.
The cleaner lady can't really take on the might of the corporate NHS can she.

I'm no cheerleader for the unions but if I worked for the NHS and I wanted a 1 percent pay rise I probably would like them!

 

[EC1]

of course unions are done with NOW...i wasn't talking about now...and if anyone does go on strike the government tell teh media not to cover it...so its hidden....the public are so downtrodden now they'll put up with anyone shittin on them generally anyway..too busy trying to stop themselves going under to be arsed about fighting anyone.....been brainwashed to accept whats on offer..ooh and be really grateful..sounds like times past somewhere ago doesn't it?

Clive..how does people going to football matches in large numbers show a healthy economy?.....they turned out in much higher numbers in the 30's & 50's when times were tough..it tells you bugger all about the economy

 

[EC1]

+ only in this country could the working man be brainwashed to turn against an organisation set out to help them..working man lets tory party turn him against something there for his benefit..you will never see an untouchable turn against that that protects and enhances his life....this is why the working man is buggered in this country..wouldn't know what unity is any more..never stick together...sells out his principles to which ever party is flavour of month.

thats why you get them at the top..and them under..top always stick together..those under..have never learned that bit of the game.

and we live in a country where there are two rules of law..one for joe soap..and then the other as highlighted on paedo thread where if its an untouchable..it "adds complications" to proceedings...ordinary man reads that..and doesn't even find it disturbing..not one comment on that thread about the obvious 2 law system in this country

 

[clivex]

You've actually answered your own question, and it comes back to something I posted a few hours ago about how Unions have increasingly been forced onto legal ground in order to defend their members

In the first case, it's often European law that is stronger than UK law, but which has primacy. The Tories are obviously trying to roll that back, and I daren't think what UKIP would have. This is one of the reasons I still tend to find myself on side with being a member of the EU, simply because I don't trust our own government's and don't want to enter a race to the bottom with Bangladesh

The "adequate" legal system costs money, the trade union offers this to their members free (well sort of free - union subscriptions) you don't pay an additional legal bill. It's also worth noting of course that most packages now extend to non work related legal areas as well. It's true that you will get the 'no win, no fee' merchants chasing any registration made at a tribunal, but there is always a question mark over the capacity that these firms have

Or you can have a situation like France where businesses are terrified of hiring staff because its virtually impossible to let them go when you need to. The more "employee rights" the less new jobs. One reason why America came out of recession so much quicker than still dead Eurozone is because job mobility is much higher. They are not frightened to take on staff.

 

[clivex]

of course unions are done with NOW...i wasn't talking about now...and if anyone does go on strike the government tell teh media not to cover it...so its hidden....the public are so downtrodden now they'll put up with anyone shittin on them generally anyway..too busy trying to stop themselves going under to be arsed about fighting anyone.....been brainwashed to accept whats on offer..ooh and be really grateful..sounds like times past somewhere ago doesn't it?

Clive..how does people going to football matches in large numbers show a healthy economy?.....they turned out in much higher numbers in the 30's & 50's when times were tough..it tells you bugger all about the economy

They are paying a far higher rate to do so. When I first went a ticket was about the same as a cinema ticket. Now it's five times that. And crowds are far higher than in the 70s and 80s.

 

[EC1]

they aren't higher gates than the 30's & 50's though Clive.

gates were down in the 70's & 80's because generally an ordinary person didn't want his head kicked in or getting stuck behind a fence that the hooligans created due to their behaviour...a fence that they created..and a fence people got trapped behind at Hillsborough..the thugs forget the main reason why people got crushed there..it was because animal fences had been put up..for animals..its all right blaming every one else..no fence..no Hillsborough disaster

are they paying a higher rate?..really?

I'll ask you another question then..in this time of us being really well off with all this spare money about...why are Pay Day Loans getting such a lot of action?...surely you don't get that when people are prosperous...also how come shops like Bright House seem to be appearing all over the place?