Political round up.............

Unions are like cops....Everyone hates them until they need one..

I don't hate police. I do, however, hate what unions have become. They were needed until Maggie Thatcher stepped down, and since then have attempted to justify their existence by setting out to ruin public services (albeit for their members' gain). I'd never join a union, even a gunpoint.

I also don't see why they should be allowed to be involved in politics. Labour should not have their leadership elections tainted - and irrevocably dicated - by union wishes. It's a disgrace really.

The Tories can have theirs tainted - and irrevocably dictated - by corporations and wealthy individuals, though. That's fine.

Which Tory leader was installed by/due to corporate backing??

Azzy wrote:I don't hate police. I do, however, hate what unions have become. They were needed until Maggie Thatcher stepped down, and since then have attempted to justify their existence by setting out to ruin public services (albeit for their members' gain). I'd never join a union, even a gunpoint.

I also don't see why they should be allowed to be involved in politics. Labour should not have their leadership elections tainted - and irrevocably dicated - by union wishes. It's a disgrace really.

You're so ignorant you're hardly worth it...

Unions help companies in all sorts of ways...... Fighting inequality in the work place.....Wage negotiation.....running interference....Smoothing over differences.....Improving overall well being in the work place (Negotiating flexible working hours etc)...Improving training in the workplace...

It's a proven fact that workers perception of job quality are more favorable in organisations where an onsite representative is present !!!..

If you knew anything about industrial psychology you'd know that a happy worker is a more productive one....

Unions aren't just helpful to their members they are helpful to the EMPLOYERS too..

Not that you'd know all this because you don't take the time to learn........... like the other timewaster.....

Mimimum wage in the UK was the work of the unions. That mandatory leave you get from your job so you can get a week in Spain (visa-free, of course) was down to unions. Safety equipment in dangerous places of work, unions.

I could go on but I feel I'm wasting effort here.

However, I'm in agreement that some (very isolated) packages do need to be reset. Train drivers earning that much - if that's true - is clearly silly for unskilled labour. But the unions are always going to look out for their members, they're bound to do that. Just as Google are going to look out for their shareholders when they rip off the British taxpayer by not paying their fair share.

It's just this kintergarten right wing trash....That Unions are there to screw the employers...That gets me..

It's in both interests to work together to improve the efficiency of the company to make it more profitable... and in most cases they do that...

Unions aren't perfect but they are better than the alternative..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're so ignorant you're hardly worth it...

Unions help companies in all sorts of ways...... Fighting inequality in the work place.....Wage negotiation.....running interference....Smoothing over differences.....Improving overall well being in the work place (Negotiating flexible working hours etc)...Improving training in the workplace...

It's a proven fact that workers perception of job quality are more favorable in organisations where an onsite representative is present !!!..

If you knew anything about industrial psychology you'd know that a happy worker is a more productive one....

Unions aren't just helpful to their members they are helpful to the EMPLOYERS too..

Not that you'd know all this because you don't take the time to learn........... like the other timewaster.....

My workplace has a Union. It's the most pathetic organization I've ever seen. They do nothing for its members, hinder the company, and only bother getting involved in staff welfare when it's something that can end up on P17 of the Daily Mirror. This is now the fourth employer I have been with that has worked 'with' Unions - none of them have ever done anything positive for either myself or my colleagues.

And I believe that reason is that life would go on without my line of work - I'm not a tube driver, doctor or copper. Those professions have for years run roughshod over other professions due to the public-facing role they have. And the Unions spend 90% of their time focussing on 10% of the country.

Yet contrary to that, the place I work has the happiest workforce across more than 40 comparable organizations. Weird. You'd think we'd need a strong Union strongarming our employer into 18% pay increases to be happy.

Pr4wn wrote:Mimimum wage in the UK was the work of the unions. That mandatory leave you get from your job so you can get a week in Spain (visa-free, of course) was down to unions. Safety equipment in dangerous places of work, unions.

Yes, Labour was forced into a policy it didn't want at the time due to their main supporters demanding it.

I haven't had a passport since 2008 so unless I'm swimming to Spain I'm not getting in. I think society as a whole gets far too much holiday, starting with politicians. Our grandparents worked 7 day weeks, we should be grateful we get weekends off (some of us). I get 30 days leave per year plus 11.5 days of bank holidays etc - I never use mine and if I could sell most of them, I would.

Safety equipment at work was done well before Unions stopped being useful and doing honest good for public benefit. That's the crux of the matter. Unions supported their members AND did what was socially right. Now they couldn't care less about Joe Public, because JP don't pay a tithe. If a Union out there managed to look after its members and NOT cancel 4,000 surgeries, NOT cause billions £ worth of loss of business every tube strike, and continue to man the 999 phones (and act) when the police strike, then I'd sign up myself.

There you have it folks. We should return to work practices that our grandparents had.

Unsurprising that you don't have a passport, by the way.

Honestly, this bloke is beyond parody. I thought Duty was bad...

Pr4wn wrote:There you have it folks. We should return to work practices that our grandparents had.

Unsurprising that you don't have a passport, by the way.

Honestly, this bloke is beyond parody. I thought Duty was bad...

Excuse me moderator, shouldn't you be debating the points and not the poster(s)?

It's a house rule, I believe.

5) Replies should only address the points of a post. Do not make personal attacks on posters whose points you disagree with. Debate the point not the poster.

Pr4wn wrote:Train drivers earning that much - if that's true - is clearly silly for unskilled labour.

Must just be me who doesn't know how to drive a train...mind you, after watching that documentary I thought Thomas and his friends drove themselves

Pr4wn wrote:Mimimum wage in the UK was the work of the unions. That mandatory leave you get from your job so you can get a week in Spain (visa-free, of course) was down to unions. Safety equipment in dangerous places of work, unions.

I could go on but I feel I'm wasting effort here.

However, I'm in agreement that some (very isolated) packages do need to be reset. Train drivers earning that much - if that's true - is clearly silly for unskilled labour. But the unions are always going to look out for their members, they're bound to do that. Just as Google are going to look out for their shareholders when they rip off the British taxpayer by not paying their fair share.

Predictable irrelevant BS. I don't care what TUs achieved 20, 50, 100+ years ago etc (I applaud them for past achievements) - I was very specific that it is their 21st century incarnation that's perverse and irrelevant and provides zero societal benefit despite their hypocritical PR.

They are indeed like Google, the difference is corporates get slated for acting selfishly but TUs are protected and defended when they act in the same way and to equal detriment.

Pr4wn wrote:There you have it folks. We should return to work practices that our grandparents had.

Unsurprising that you don't have a passport, by the way.

Honestly, this bloke is beyond parody. I thought Duty was bad...

I'm afraid it's just not worth debating issues like Unions on here..

You're dealing with people who have no idea about them....

Who get their talking points from the Daily Mail...and believe everything they read.

DAVE667 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Train drivers earning that much - if that's true - is clearly silly for unskilled labour.

Must just be me who doesn't know how to drive a train...mind you, after watching that documentary I thought Thomas and his friends drove themselves

Takes about as much skill as getting out of bed in the morning.....

TopHat24/7 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Train drivers earning that much - if that's true - is clearly silly for unskilled labour.

Must just be me who doesn't know how to drive a train...mind you, after watching that documentary I thought Thomas and his friends drove themselves

Takes about as much skill as getting out of bed in the morning.....

If, like you they have to hire a crane then their wages are justified.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Train drivers earning that much - if that's true - is clearly silly for unskilled labour.

Must just be me who doesn't know how to drive a train...mind you, after watching that documentary I thought Thomas and his friends drove themselves

Takes about as much skill as getting out of bed in the morning.....

Quite a damning comment from the man who is chauffeured everywhere (to Gregg's and back)

When you troubleshoot in failing companies...You can examine the profit margins...look at the size of the management...How many senior execs and directors....See how they are peeing good money away by not expediting thruput..Productivity ..General waste....Do all the time and motion studies you want..

But a lot of it boils down to things as simple as communication.....

Azzy wrote:Can someone explain how privatizing the NHS helps anyone, Tory or Labour? Surely it would be catastrophic to the future of any political party to even entertain the notion?

It's pretty much privatised already (or so I've been told by a few Consultants) and there's no way on this Earth it isn't going to be in the future if there's not a significant increase in taxation to pay for it.

They could save a shedload of money for a start by actually keeping a track of all the kit they loan out and have no idea of where its gone and also have a good hard look at free prescriptions and when they're allowable.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:This. I would happily pay more tax if it meant the NHS was run properly, doctors were getting paid adequately, and other government run services were smooth and efficient.

Most of what you paid would be trousered in increased pay etc. Service wouldn't change, in all likelihood.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:...and with a poll yesterday indicating that 90% of junior doctors were ready to leave the NHS if a new contract were imposed I think Hunt has completely misjudged this one.

Meaningless. Any poll of that type isn't going to give a good representation of reality when push comes to shove. They can't all mess off to Australia. I suspect some will do what they've already shoddily done  i.e. form their own company as a group and work as contractors on very good rates with the NHS. There's many who don't officially actually work for the NHS and rake in a shed load.

Olly wrote:The imposition makes no sense to me - only 20 out of 200+ CEO's of trusts supported it...

Really? I don't think you're interpreting that right. 20 agreed to have their names on that letter. Nothing was said about the responses of the other 180 was there?

GSC wrote:Id actually support junior doctors more if they just said they wanted more money to work weekends than hiding behind excuses.

Quite.

15 of those 20 heads of trusts have contacted Jeremy Hunt to say that the letter he circulated was not the one they agreed to put their name to?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/12/health-chief-letter-whatever-necessary-contracts-not-agreed

DAVE667 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Train drivers earning that much - if that's true - is clearly silly for unskilled labour.

Must just be me who doesn't know how to drive a train...mind you, after watching that documentary I thought Thomas and his friends drove themselves

Takes about as much skill as getting out of bed in the morning.....

Quite a damning comment from the man who is chauffeured everywhere (to Gregg's and back)

I wish. It's the bicycle for me I'm afraid.

Pr4wn wrote:15 of those 20 heads of trusts have contacted Jeremy Hunt to say that the letter he circulated was not the one they agreed to put their name to?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/12/health-chief-letter-whatever-necessary-contracts-not-agreed

He said, she said. What they mean is they've got cold feet now their names are out as publicly in support.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:There you have it folks. We should return to work practices that our grandparents had.

Unsurprising that you don't have a passport, by the way.

Honestly, this bloke is beyond parody. I thought Duty was bad...

Excuse me moderator, shouldn't you be debating the points and not the poster(s)?

It's a house rule, I believe.

5) Replies should only address the points of a post. Do not make personal attacks on posters whose points you disagree with. Debate the point not the poster.

Doing your civic 'duty' there I see...

Prawny, that was a stellar response to points very clearly laid out:

- ignore my points, and put words in my mouth (fwiw, if we all had 10% of the work ethic of our forebears, we'd all be much better off)
- insult me (staycationers are a boon to the economy, and I'd recommend everyone not renew their passport as this country has something for everyone)
- quite what a parody of me would look like, I don't know. I'd quite like to see it though

I believe people should be grateful they have jobs. They shouldn't be given the right to strike, just because their employer wants to give them a pay raise while expecting more in return. People should be grateful they get holiday. People should be grateful they have public services, running water etc.

Unions were a necessary evil for generations - they are now just evil. The good they did for decades in this country is being eroded by the bad they have been doing for the last 20 years.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:15 of those 20 heads of trusts have contacted Jeremy Hunt to say that the letter he circulated was not the one they agreed to put their name to?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/12/health-chief-letter-whatever-necessary-contracts-not-agreed

He said, she said. What they mean is they've got cold feet now their names are out as publicly in support.

So no evidence for your spurious claim at all, then? I've cited mine.

Hunt is playing dirty, which is to be expected.

So are the BMA......

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:15 of those 20 heads of trusts have contacted Jeremy Hunt to say that the letter he circulated was not the one they agreed to put their name to?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/12/health-chief-letter-whatever-necessary-contracts-not-agreed

He said, she said. What they mean is they've got cold feet now their names are out as publicly in support.

So no evidence for your spurious claim at all, then? I've cited mine.

Hunt is playing dirty, which is to be expected.

That's not evidence of what you're claiming. At all. It's suggestive that, having been outed on that letter, they now don't like it. You have no evidence, what-so-ever, that they didn't, in fact, support it initially. They just don't like the fact now they realise their names are out in public.
I never suggested that what I said was evidence that they did, in fact, support the decision. You obviously have a problem reading between the lines. I was implying that your post was no evidence at all of what you're claiming it supports. It still isn't. Sorry. Claim and counter claim is not evidence. Your political bias doesn't help either.

I have a problem reading what you're writing. It's difficult.

The fact that 15 of them have now come out together saying that this was not the letter that they endorsed makes my claim far more likely than yours. It points to foul play by Hunt and his team. Surely you can see that, unless you're looking for some ulterior motive to support your already-held view.

To suggest that they - all 15 of them - all got cold feet is clutching at straws.

oops

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/david-cameron-brilliant-uk-arms-exports-saudi-arabia-bae

Meh

ICM poll.................Con 36.......Lab 36..............

Must be an outlier..

The day Labour beats the Tories with Corbyn as leader is the day I move to Norway.

Quick round up..........

London Mayor - Khan (lab) 1/4....Goldsmith (Con) 3/1

Euro ref - "In" 2/5.."Out" 15/8..."Shake it all about" 500/1

Yougov - Con 33........Lab 34...
Ipsos - Con 36........Lab 34...

Ipsos Who's the best leader..Corbyn -11 ..Cameron -25..

Take it easy......

The shambles the cons are at the moment, any competent labour leader should be riding a large wave of momentum. Corbyn gave Dave such as easy ride after IDS resigned, its becoming clearer to me he just isnt slick enough for frontline politics.

The local elections in England will be a good benchmark for Corbyn's Labour.

Opposition parties tend to do well in such elections, so a healthy success should be expected and delivered upon. With the Conservatives struggling, and the Lib Dems falling away, the only true barrier to Labour is UKIP - and UKIP's support is currently stable, not spectacular.

UKIP should, however, do well in Wales, and the SNP should continue in a similar vein in Scotland. The London Mayoral contest is surely a mere formality.

You know it's bad when the opposition party is so shambolic, so disorganised and so incompetnent that the incumbent's only real opposition & challenge comes from within.

Cons cannibalising themselves at the moment. Would love to see LDs pick up some of the slack from disaffected Tories.

BBC Latest wrote:David Cameron has called for greater transparency in tax havens and a clampdown on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion. But documents leaked from one of the world's biggest offshore specialists, Mossack Fonseca, reveal that his late father used one of the most secretive tools of the offshore trade after he helped set up a fund for investors.

When Ian Cameron wanted to attend a board meeting of Blairmore Holdings, he had to fly to either Switzerland or the Bahamas.

Blairmore, which appears to have been named after the Cameron family's ancestral estate in Aberdeenshire, held its meetings offshore to ensure the investment fund wouldn't have to pay any UK income tax or corporation tax on its profits.

If the meetings had been held in London, then it may have been considered resident in the UK and taxed as a UK company.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35961422

Business as usual then

Am I surprised, and do I really care that much both end in no for me to be honest.

Yeh, because it's suddenly ok to blame an MP for every action of a relative.

If someone castigated Corbyn because of something his relatives did it would all be "poor JV, always being attacked by the MSM, so unfair....so put upon.... etc".

Unless Cameron himself can be shown to have been guilty of tax evasion (or even avoidance) it's a non-story.

Daily Mail already tried that on Ed Milliband and his father.

I trust that DC refused his inheritance on the basis of how crooked it was, then?

Yeh, and that was BS too. About as relevant as him looking a doofus having a bacon sarnie.


And what's his inheritance got to do with you? Especially as you're throwing stones in a glass tax haven.

Again, keep the personal insults out of this Toppy. You're better than that. I certainly can't help where I was born. I absolutely despise this place and I'm moving away in June for good.

His inheritance, however, has everything to do with the British public. If he comes out talking all this cr@p about clamping down on tax havens but took a massive inheritance from his father that went through one, that's more than a little hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

Why keep the personal remarks out when that's exactly what you're attacking Cameron for??

You've lived a life benefitting from the trappings of tax haven residency. It's hypocritical for you to chastise Cameron for his private family affairs that bear no relevance on his conduct as PM.

So because I was born in Jersey (a place, by the way, where my father is a mechanic and my grandmother picked potatoes) I'm a hypocrite because I'm pointing out that David Cameron, a toff brought up in unbelievable amounts of, what now appears to be, tax-free money is a hypocrite for taking it?

I was born here, I hate this place and everything that it stands for.

And you talk about straw-man arguments!

Pretty sure you've mentioned before the type of work you do though and it certainly isn't tradesman or fruit picker.

Hard to tell because you don't publicise your age though. Could be a green 18 yr old keen to leave, or someone in their 30s who has had a decade or more of earnings behind them.

But no, I still don't consider DC a hypocrite for something his father did whilst he was growing up - especially when that father died before DC even took power. Not like (from memory) DC spent his time in oppo saying how tax havens were disgusting and should be closed whilst he knocked off for the day and went to pick up his trust fund cheque from daddies off-shore co.

Or rather, everything that it now stands for. This place used to be honest, not any more.

Funny with our situations Toppy, you'd fit right in here.

Given recent tax regime changes, I may need to make use of Jersey in the future for my BTLs, however the charges are quite punitive for doing so and only really worth it if you have a proper sized portfolio. Mom&pop personal pension savers like me will just have to stick with getting screwed for thousands whilst everyone has a good cry about the poor getting knocked for the cost of a packet of fags every week.

TopHat24/7 wrote:whilst everyone has a good cry about the poor getting knocked for the cost of a packet of fags every week.

And so we will, it's a bitch.

I see Corbyn according to Yougov is more popular than all the other leaders...including Farage...

Personally I think he's a joke but then I thought Bernie was too.

Perhaps he'll surprise us all.

Well it is local elections day today and polls suggesting a handsome win for the SNP in Scotland today. It would seem the chief issue up for grabs are Scottish Conservative and Scottish Labour fighting over the crumbs and bragging rights to who can be called the main opposition.