Labour's Employment Rights Bill

[Jacob]

I have always found it rather amusing that Jacob should use an image of a Knight Templar as his avatar.

If you look closely he's holding a push stick, which is what I've mainly been crusading about! He'd have two if he wasn't having to hold a shield with a red sun logo on it.
Thanks to @Trevanion (if I remember correctly) late of this parish, who photoshopped it.

The organisation as a whole were arguably the world's earliest bankers in the modern sense, and became fabulously wealthy on the back of the crusades. The archetypal capitalists.
The military wing were amongst the most brutal involved in the crusades.
They took large tracts of land in Palestine, and were granted more by the pope. They butchered large numbers of the Muslim population in these areas, allegedly for the security of Christian pilgrims.
Exactly the sort of thing we now criticise Israel for, none more so than Jacob himself.

It's a continuum, continually changing with any number of significant events as "starting" points, going right back through history, and presumably beyond. The fight "for the many, not the few".

 

[Fergie 307]

If you look closely he's holding two push sticks, which is what I've been crusading about!

It's a continuum, continually changing with any number of significant events as "starting" points, going right back through history, and presumably beyond.

Fair enough re the push sticks, I am certainly with you on that one, but still perhaps an unfortunate choice of knight to be wielding them

 

[ey_tony]

"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists!" - Friedrich von Hayek. Nobel Prize, Economics.

From my perspective as someone who is arguably politically neutral, who rejects far left and far right politics and with a leaning toward political common sense, I'd ask:
If socialism is so good then it shouldn't be difficult for socialists to name one truly successful 'socialist' country to use as a good example of how things would be if they had their way and socialism was the adopted politics of the UK?

 

[niemeyjt]

I am not sure, despite their Momentum wing, that (New) Labour can be described as true socialists.

They are still rubbish though - you can see the problems piling up already. Remember, there is no situation that a politician cannot make worse.

 

[Jacob]

"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists!" - Friedrich von Hayek. Nobel Prize, Economics.

Hayek, Freidman and others notorious exponents of the failed neo-liberalism taken up by Thatcher and `Reagan, from which we may at last be recovering.

From my perspective as someone who is arguably politically neutral, who rejects far left and far right politics and with a leaning toward political common sense, I'd ask:
If socialism is so good then it shouldn't be difficult for socialists to name one truly successful 'socialist' country to use as a good example of how things would be if they had their way and socialism was the adopted politics of the UK?

UK and all modern states are substantially socialist already. Surprised you haven't noticed! Around 50% if their GDPs tends to be public spending, on infrastructure, health, education, welfare, with some wholly state run/owned ventures and masses of support/investment/control/regulation trying to make the others work for the public good.
Socialism isn't another alternative system lurking in the undergrowth waiting to take over the world, its already here, alive and well, normal, life as we know it. There is no revolution in the offing, it's more about making the system we already have work better. We are all socialists now.
The main radical "alternative system", threatening life as we know it, is along the lines of Hayek, Freidman et al; the idea that the state is bad and de-regulation at every level is good.
It's basically old fashioned conservatism which means doing as little as possible about anything and just letting things take their own course, resisting change and all social improvements.
What it's really about is the avoidance of re-distribution of wealth, justified by the astonishingly childish "trickle down" economic theory. Taxation is their main obsession - the lower the better.
In the real world high taxation is the price of civilisation and there is no alternative. "For the many, not the few."
Hope that helps!

 

[MikeJhn]

Unions do not fight for jobs: oh yes they do, and for all manner of civil rights. They have always been and still are a major force in the Labour movement, for the benefit of society as a whole.
This is why the right wing media are so keen on convincing you that they are the work of Satan! You shouldn't believe everything/anything you read in the Mail or Telegraph.

Conveniently edited post there Jacob, I repeat, Unions do not fight for their jobs, their jobs are guaranteed and are paid whilst their members are on strike, very blinkered biased view.

I am going to stop feeding the Troll now, I'm out, you have won.

 

[Jacob]

Conveniently edited post there Jacob, I repeat, Unions do not fight for their jobs, their jobs are guaranteed and are paid whilst their members are on strike, very blinkered biased view.

I am going to stop feeding the Troll now, I'm out, you have won.

You know perfectly well that they fight for the jobs of their members, not the union leaders personal incomes.

 

[flying haggis]

You know perfectly well that they fight for the jobs of their members, not the union leaders personal incomes.

Yeah right.......how much money do the union bosses lose if the members are on strike? I bet most union bosses get paid, not earn, a lot more than the people they claim to care about!
And Mick lynch of the train union gets more than twice the money that his " members" get, something not right there. Perhaps union bosses should be on a salary of the average worker in that industry! See how many would carry on doing the work then!!!!,

and he wasn't the worst
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/rail_union_bosses_take_home_500_000_in_pay_and_perks#:~:text=Former RMT assistant general secretary, Mick Lynch, had total remuneration,£18,151 in pension contributions.

Nice of a rail union to provide a car allowance to the union boss so that they didn't have to travel by the very method they want the rest of us to pay dearly for.....

 

[Jacob]

Yeah right.......how much money do the union bosses lose if the members are on strike? I bet most union bosses get paid, not earn, a lot more than the people they claim to care about!

Apparently they are well paid but nothing like the pay for equivalent executives in the private sector. It's not the main issue anyway, though anybody is free to make a separate argument about it.

 

[flying haggis]

But an executive in the private sector can be sacked if they make the wrong desicions. When was the last time a union boss was sacked?

 

[Jacob]

But an executive in the private sector can be sacked if they make the wrong desicions. When was the last time a union boss was sacked?

Dunno you tell me.
When were Paula Vennels and others of her gang sacked?

 

[ey_tony]

Hayek, Freidman and others notorious exponents of the failed neo-liberalism taken up by Thatcher and `Reagan, from which we may at last be recovering.

UK and all modern states are substantially socialist already. Surprised you haven't noticed! Around 50% if their GDPs tends to be public spending, on infrastructure, health, education, welfare, with some wholly state run/owned ventures and masses of support/investment/control/regulation trying to make the others work for the public good.
Socialism isn't another alternative system lurking in the undergrowth waiting to take over the world, its already here, alive and well, normal, life as we know it. There is no revolution in the offing, it's more about making the system we already have work better. We are all socialists now.
The main radical "alternative system", threatening life as we know it, is along the lines of Hayek, Freidman et al; the idea that the state is bad and de-regulation at every level is good.
It's basically old fashioned conservatism which means doing as little as possible about anything and just letting things take their own course, resisting change and all social improvements.
What it's really about is the avoidance of re-distribution of wealth, justified by the astonishingly childish "trickle down" economic theory. Taxation is their main obsession - the lower the better.
In the real world high taxation is the price of civilisation and there is no alternative. "For the many, not the few."
Hope that helps!

All I ask is for you to name one successful 'socialist' nation which is a good example of how a country could enhance everyone's life experiences that you believe socialism provides.
Surely that is not too much to ask or does this Utopia only exist in the minds of those who follow a socialist ideology or believe they should live a life of entitlement?

As for Hayek's opinion, I'll take the word of an expert acclaimed prize winning economist over that of people who have entrenched ideological views with no economics background.
I don't say that all socialist views are wrong, on the contrary many have been beneficial for bettering our society and I recognise that many socialist policies are good but unfortunately socialists it seems, think they are the only ones with compassion etc and hold the moral high ground in all things political which is utterly ludicrous.

 

[niall Y]

In government surely we need Capitalism tempered with Socialism or vice versa, They are the two sides of the same coin. No separate system left to run unchecked is going to work for the benefit of all the people, At the moment we move between political parties who favour one approach or the other and this way we achieve a modicum of fairness.

 

[Jacob]

All I ask is for you to name one successful 'socialist' nation which is a good example of how a country could enhance everyone's life experiences that you believe socialism provides.

Denmark is often quoted as top of the charts, but as I say all modern states make some efforts to "enhance everyone's life experiences". Socialism is normal.

 

[flying haggis]

Till they run out of other people's money!

And it's nice of this government to stop winter fuel payments to the pensioners as they have lots of illegals to fund....

 

[Jacob]

In government surely we need Capitalism tempered with Socialism or vice versa, They are the two sides of the same coin. No separate system left to run unchecked is going to work for the benefit of all the people, At the moment we move between political parties who favour one approach or the other and this way we achieve a modicum of fairness.

It depends on what you mean by "capitalism".
At one level it's just a normal way of getting things done; people getting together with money, personnel, tools, whatever, for a profitable and hopefully worthwhile project.
At another level there is an ideology concerned with wealth owners and/or generators having the right to keep as much as possible for themselves, irrespective of the needs of society as a whole.

 

[Jacob]

Till they run out of other people's money!

They don't though. What goes around comes around. Taxation drives economies.
Low taxation leads to the "banana republic" where the majority of the population are in dire poverty.

 

[Lons]

Running a union takes leadership, intellect, brains, skill, and a willingness to take risks.

If you look closely he's holding a push stick, which is what I've mainly been crusading about! He'd have two if he wasn't having to hold a shield with a red sun logo on it.

Ian Lavery, well known ex miners union president who swapped jobs with an outgoing labour MP but made himself redundant with a sizeable payout. I guess that takes brains and a criminal mind when you add the crimes he's been ducking and diving to hide for years.

Maybe you should follow the RAF example and remove the word Crusading in case it upsets a muslim.

 

[niall Y]

It depends on what you mean by "capitalism".
At one level it's just a normal way of getting things done; people getting together with money, personnel, tools, whatever, for a profitable and hopefully worthwhile project.
At another level there is an ideology concerned with wealth owners and/or generators having the right to keep as much as possible for themselves, irrespective of the needs of society as a whole.

Unfettered Capitalism is a rather nasty thing, it can lead to wars, fought for nothing more than the profits of a few. Even Edward Heath felt compelled to comment on " The unacceptable face of Capitalism"
Unfettered Socialism, also has it's ugly side. Anything at all, can be justified, as long as it is for the benefit of the majority.

From this it would be logical to assume that neither system should be allowed free reign. Mercifully the democratic process at least gives us some of the checks and balances we need to stop things getting out of hand.

Perhaps, on a philosophical level, those ways of behaving that for convenience sake, we call Capitalism and Socialism. exist side-by-side in all of us. And we should take care that nether of them come to the fore at the expense of the other. In other words we should wrestle with our conscience and not let the base extremes take over.

 

[ey_tony]

Denmark is often quoted as top of the charts, but as I say all modern states make some efforts to "enhance everyone's life experiences". Socialism is normal.

The population of Yorkshire is larger than that of Denmark. Denmark is a market economy and not a socialist country.
You would need to go further afield to find them. For example Cuba, North Korea, China similarly et al.
None of those countries would have any appeal for the vast majority of people living in the UK.

As for the differences between socialists and Conservatives, if the latter had indicated that they were going to remove the winter fuel allowance of millions of pensioners this winter, they would have been vilified from the end to end of Britain.
But because it's a Labour government going to do it, everything is played down by its disciples.

I think the people of the UK, 12 months down the line are going to bitterly regret voting for them after having fallen for the anti-Tory hype we've seen over the past few years.