Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:27 pm  

Ok:

Mintball wrote:

Why, for a single, solitary minute, do you believe that people should just put up and shut up, when they're struggling to make basic ends meet?

I do not. I just think these initiatives are driven by the Union leader's agenda, rather than members directly. That's why I proposed a different mechanism to precede strike ballots.

Mintball wrote:

Why, for a single, solitary minute, do you believe this is what the economy needs?

What the economy needs is for people to produce more for less money. The distribution of incomes within that is another matter.

Mintball wrote:

Why, for a single, solitary minute, do you apparently believe that the very rich getting ever richer while everyone else gets poorer is even remotely acceptable?

I do not.

Mintball wrote:

And what, if these trades unions have got it so wrong, should be done?

See above.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:00 pm  

Dally wrote:

... I do not. I just think these initiatives are driven by the Union leader's agenda, rather than members directly. That's why I proposed a different mechanism to precede strike ballots...

And what would you propose replacing general and council elections with?

Dally wrote:

What the economy needs is for people to produce more for less money...

Well let's start with those at the top, shall we, who are already earning millions – at the same time as 'producing' the financial crisis, and then 'producing' no help to small businesses after being given more taxpayers' money via QE.

And how do you "produce more" when you're a carer for, say, elderly people, eh? This is part of the problem – people knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Dally wrote:

The distribution of incomes within that is another matter.

It is not "another matter" when people are suffering right now. This is people who are working – they do jobs. And since their already low incomes have been cut and cut and cut for years already (just as you want), they now have difficulty making basic ends meet. That's why, for instance, UNISON's own charity has been seeing applications for help with school uniforms rise for three successive years.

So what is your solution for how ordinary people should live?

Which do you pick – the fuel bill or the food on the table?

We have food banks on the rise in the UK – food banks, for goodness sake, in one of the richest countries in the world. That's obscenely immoral.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:04 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And what would you propose replacing elections with?

Well let's start with those at the top, shall we, who are already earning millions – at the same time as 'producing' sod all.

It is not "another matter" when people are suffering right now. This is people who are working – they do jobs. And since their already low incomes have been cut and cut and cut for years already (just as you want), they now have difficulty making basic ends meet. That's why, for instance, UNISON's own charity has been seeing applications for help with school uniforms rise for three successive years.

So what is your solution for how ordinary people should live?

Which do you pick – the fuel bill or the food on the table?

We have food banks on the rise in the UK – food banks, for goodness sake, in one of the richest countries in the world. That's obscenely immoral.

Ed Balls told the TUC that he'd cut too and wouldn't increase pay. So no mainstream politician thinks your remedy is sensible.

Are you going to stop your many jaunts abroad and give the money saved to the poor of Hackney or charity? I somehow doubt it. If not, stop bleating about others' misfortune. They don't need your nannying, they can look after themselves.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:21 pm  

Dally wrote:

Ed Balls told the TUC that he'd cut too and wouldn't increase pay. So no mainstream politician thinks your remedy is sensible.

Are you going to stop your many jaunts abroad and give the money saved to the poor of Hackney or charity? I somehow doubt it. If not, stop bleating about others' misfortune. They don't need your nannying, they can look after themselves.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Must do better.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:22 pm  

Mintball wrote:

:lol:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Must do better.

No. You say the rich should stump up to help the poor. In the contexts I have mentioned you are, relatively speaking, the rich. So, go on then and I may take your rantings seriously. 'til then you are just being hypocritical.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:08 pm  

Dally wrote:

No. You say the rich should stump up to help the poor. In the contexts I have mentioned you are, relatively speaking, the rich. So, go on then and I may take your rantings seriously. 'til then you are just being hypocritical.

I have never said that.

I have said that:

1) people and companies should pay their due taxes. That's something that I do: I do not employ an accountant to do my books and work out ways to avoid my paying my due tax;

2) companies that need to employ workers should pay them a living wage. A company the size of, say, Tesco can have no excuse not to pay staff a living wage – or to use free labour via schemes such as Workfare.

An argument could be made, on the the second point, that small companies (including start ups) should perhaps have help available – but not as a long-term proposition. Perhaps particularly in times such as these. But I do not support the idea that the taxpayer should subsidise the profits of private businesses, via in-work benefits.

Let us be clear: the deficit and the recession were caused by catastrophic failings of big finance, which then had to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

Jobs and services are being cut because of this (or, to be more accurate, using this as an excuse). Similarly, pay is being cut for many workers on the same grounds. Not, of course, those who were responsible, though.

It is economic illiteracy to believe that this is good for the economy. It removes money from local economies, at exactly the time they need it most. There is an entirely sound argument that, if you wish to make cuts to state spending, then the time to do it is in times of prosperity and high employment – precisely because those things will mitigate against the worst effects of losses to services and jobs in the public sector. But in a time of financial crisis, it is utter idiocy.

Moreover, even if one were to accept, at face value, the need to cut the deficit quickly (which is not happening, as the cuts are actually helping to increase it) as a result of the aforementioned financial crisis, then that could itself be alleviated (and the cuts avoided) by collection/payment of due taxes (particularly of the corporate variety) and possibly also by a tax on financial transactions.

Let us be quite clear about a few things.

I have never objected to wealth.

I have never suggested that everybody should be on, say, £100K per annum.

I have never said that someone shouldn't be paid millions either.

I have simply said that anyone who works for a living, should be paid a living wage. Anything else is utterly and completely immoral – not least since some of the biggest culprits are some very rich companies.

Given that I pay my tax and do not use avoidance schemes, your claim that I am a hypocrite is ludicrous.

Your apparent idea that, as someone who is (at present – and long may it continue: I've spent most of my adult life in working poverty and it ain't fun) comfortably off, I shouldn't concern myself with 'The Poor', is frankly ... well, I'm nearly rendered speechless. If you really believe that, then such beliefs are actually at the heart of our problems as a nation. How extraordinarily selfish and short-sighted.

I have no idea whether you really don't understand the issues or are simply attempting to move the goalposts because you do not like some of the facts. But these, in this situation, are the facts of my 'beliefs'.

And the idea, as suggested by your own posts, that doing okay should actually make you forget any concerns about anyone else is, frankly, quite appalling.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:40 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Why should someone not have a "comfortable existence" when "'fighting the good fight"?

And what do you mean by "comfortable existence" in the first place?

So the shopwork and voluntary work, mentioned in the TUC biog, is a lie, is it?

Unions are, in theory, a fantastic idea - However, like a lot of things in life, the reality of them isn't.

The TUC is basically George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' at work.....A few career types looking after themselves, while the majority are sacrificed in order to validate their arguments and rhetoric.

I agree entirely that a massive portion of the country's plight is down to a very small, select bunch of very rich people, but the Unions wanting to fight some gallant class war, isn't going to be of any benefit to anybody, most particularly, those union members who they claim to want to look after.

My problem is, once they have made the problem worse, Barber, O'Grady and co will simply go back to their comfortable lifestyles, still believeing they have fought the good fight.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:38 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Unions are, in theory, a fantastic idea - However, like a lot of things in life, the reality of them isn't.

The TUC is basically George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' at work.....A few career types looking after themselves, while the majority are sacrificed in order to validate their arguments and rhetoric.

I agree entirely that a massive portion of the country's plight is down to a very small, select bunch of very rich people, but the Unions wanting to fight some gallant class war, isn't going to be of any benefit to anybody, most particularly, those union members who they claim to want to look after.

My problem is, once they have made the problem worse, Barber, O'Grady and co will simply go back to their comfortable lifestyles, still believeing they have fought the good fight.

The problem is of course that most people tune in, accidently or otherwise, to soundbites from the TUC conference once every year and believe that that is what trades unions are all about, conveniently forgetting the good work they do for their members and the working population as a whole, on the other 364 days of the year.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:26 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The problem is of course that most people tune in, accidently or otherwise, to soundbites from the TUC conference once every year and believe that that is what trades unions are all about, conveniently forgetting the good work they do for their members and the working population as a whole, on the other 364 days of the year.

That says it all. The leadership lets its members down as soon as they are given airtime.

Re: Olympic legacy : Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:32 pm  

So, I have got this right Minty? You pay your tax and you have "beliefs" and so your conscience is clear? You do not do anything practical to help the people you purport to have empathy for and care for? You do however like to tell anyone who will listen how honourable and caring you are and how all ills are down to others, provided those others vote Tory and / or run successful businesses? I suggest you stand for election as a leader of a major union.