Given that Hilton's wife is American and had moved back there some time before he announced his sabbatical, coupled to the fact that his kids are enjoying life out there too. Notwithstanding marital break-up, I can't see him wanting to return to the UK anytime soon

Or you could simply take money off your members give it to the labour party and get your influence that way!!

Venture capitalists/private equity are parasites - but even you don't believe the child labour stuff!!

How much trades union legislation did the last Labour governments rescind? It is also worth remembering that trades union members have to opt [iin[/i to any party political levy. That is just one of the laws that was not changed.

There we three proposals from Beecroft in his original 'draft' that we're subsequently removed by the government. One was to remove regulation on child employment.

Now, given that the entire doe service was supposed to be about boosting the economy, what has that got to do with it?

How many employers are out there wanting to employ children (in roles that, presumably, an unemployed adult cannot take on), but who are not doing so because of laws regulating child employment?

It must be a fair few if it's going to have any discernible impact on the economy - otherwise, why make the proposal?

Oh, I doubt we're going to see children up chimneys any day soon, but in that case, why the proposal? What aspect of the economŷ is affected negatively by the regulation of child employment?

Or would there be some other reason behind such a suggestion?

And more generally: just how do countries with far greater levels of trade union and employment rights manage if these are the things stopping the economy?

Did Cameron really, actually, say those words "its a price worth paying" in parliament today?

I have this horrible feeling that the current ruling incumbents just look too fresh faced and smiley to be real people, has anyone got really, really close to Cameron, close enough to look behind his ears and see if you can see where the latex mask is stuck on every day, peel it off in "Face/Off" stylee and underneath ...

Tebbit, he's been there all along.

Which mask is Thatcher wearing ?

Despite having the method of Trades Union funding of political parties explained to you on numerous occasions, you still trot out this garbage. Can you explain why?

Because, like Kirkstaller, he prefers the mythology instead of the factoids.

I have to laugh at the idea that this Beecroft guy was brought in to do an 'independent' report. How independent can a millionaire that donates to the Tory party be?

What would the Tories be saying if Labour were in government and commissioned an 'independent' report on employment law by a trade union?

As someone said, it's like asking Hannibal Lecter to produce a report on the best cuts of human meat

I've no idea if 'Socialist' is an insult now, but I've noticed that there is a creeping use of the word 'intellectual' (often tied with 'liberal') as one.

So being intelligent is a bad thing then?

"Socialist" has been a derogative taunt used by Republicans in the US for some time.

I think we've distrusted intellectualism in this country for donkey's years, but it's not improving. Let's face it, Jade Goody became famous for being stupid, then was vilified for being stupid – and then raised back to sainthood as she died in the public eye for the entertainment of the masses. And you can't get much further away from intelligence than that sort of scenario.

And we have even had at least one poster here who once declared that they were "proud to be thick".

The corporatocracy wants a compliant, pliant populace. Thinking is most certainly not part of the plan.



Translation – 'anyfink wot I don't like'.

It's increasing use over here, in such a way, is another indicator of dumbing down, methinks.

Nu Labour were reluctant to use the word 'socialist'. Kinnock wanted to move away from that nasty word to help electability. Our party was built upon the foundations of the word, and I am proud and always will be, to use it.

And then Blair was determined to get rid of Clause 4 as quickly as possible.

Yet now there seems to be a growing belief – and more widespread than perhaps expected (see the [iTelegraph[/i forums, for instance) – that privatisation of utilities was really bad for the ordinary Briton and should be reversed.

We've ended up in the fooked up world we now inhabit because of the demonisation of the word. A fairer society for all is wrong after all. Isn't it?

Nope.

Although I think it was more than a demonisation of a word – although that was part of the tactic.

The British populace in general went along with the great project. Many seemed to indeed agree that 'greed is good'. And with the change from 'keeping up with the Jones' being a phrase of scorn to a desirable lifestyle.

I don't think many could foresee the long game back in the 1980s, but it's dangerous, I think, to assume that people didn't understand what they did see and what was clear.

Many fell for privatisation on the basis of making a fast buck themselves. They fell for the home ownership mantra. Much of what was clear was palatable to many.

What people didn't realise, I would suspect, was how much the changes to Sunday trading laws, on the grounds of inconsistencies in the law, would help to pave the way for the retail revolution that has turned shopping into the country's number one hobby, 24/7. And of course that needed to happen if we were ditching manufacturing and switching to banking and retail as the dominant parts of the economy.

I find it alarming now that there is a whole generation behind me in age-pecking order who do not know or understand what a "socialist" government and society actually meant, and by that I mean the good parts (as someone will undoubtably bring up the topic of binmen strikes etc in the 1970s), for most of the local councils in the north were under socialist control for many, many decades.

I fear that there is a demonisation of the word "socialist" and a marrying of the philosophy with "communism" whereas in fact the two are completely different and should never be confused.

I didn't grow up on a council estate or in a strongly socialist area, but my wife did, in a pit village in the north east and I lived there for several years when in my 20s too - and I have to say that the experience was not unpleasant.

Its strange that in less than a generation we have lost the thought process that a person could "have a trade", and that that trade would provide a person with a job for his/her whole working life and often at the same employer.

Its strange that in less than a generation we have come to consider renting council housing as the last resort of the poor, the feckless and the workshy and that anyone in work should automatically buy their own house, this attitude may be changing again for the likes of my daughters generation, and for the better, but still the council tenant is looked down upon.

Its strange to think that in the village that my wife grew up in (and she doesn't have rose tinted specs by the way), her father rented their council house from it being a new build in the early sixties, built by a socialist local authority on a new estate under a socialist government intent on clearing away the older "slum" dwellings that stood there before to provide workers housing, sufficient bedrooms, inside toilets, that sort of thing, yes we're not talking the Victorian era here.

Her father had a trade, worked for the same employer for thirty years, her siblings all worked, there were recessions every ten years (there always are) but there were still jobs and careers with training opportunities in the manufacturing plants that had replaced the pits in the socialist controlled area - you even shopped in a supermarket with a socialist ethos, the Co-oP, and you socialised in an organisation owned and operated by its members - the CIU working mens clubs.

Manufacturing was not a dirty word, people were not ashamed to get their hands dirty or to earn a living wage for a 40 hour week with which to pay the rent, but food, clothe your family, put something aside for a holiday or xmas, and spend the rest on entertainment (sometimes not necessarily in that order), they never had any form of credit in her household, they even paid for their electricity up front with 50p in the meter and there was no shame at all in that - more importantly most people did not expect to be given anything, they expected to have to work for it even though there was a benefits system to catch them during hard times, I'm guessing that the phrase is "working class pride".


And this was the 1960s and 1970s, the years when socialism rebuilt this country's infrastructure and the people who now criticise the regime gained the most benefit from being raised in such an environment because now, as then, unless your parent bequeth you a very generous trust fund to protect you against every possible contingency and all of the crap that life will fling at you, then no-one can truly claim to be NOT socialist at all, we all belong to society, we should all contribute, and we will all benefit from a socially cohesive society - thats what socialism is.

^

^^

Thing is there was a few of us saying that at the time, no one listened.
I don't get any joy out of saying"I told you so".

This description is not unlike modern day Germany in many ways. There was a program on BBC about the Euro crisis and what struck me was not the big issues about why Greece is up the creak but how the German workforce and how German families have an ethos very much as you describe above. They aren't into buying stufff on credit. Home ownership is no the be all and end all. They can have jobs for life and so on, have an organised labour force so their country is far more socialist than ours is, yet is far more successful.

I've always thought an "inclusive" way of working is much better for the bosses as it is for the workers. It may have changed, but SNCF used to be at least part-owned by the workers which is why it was always more efficient than BR. If a company being successful benefits the workers, they'll be more inclined to work for the benefit of the company and everyone's a winner.

Quite what Beecroft thinks is bad about that is beyond me, unless he just wants it all for himself and is planning on a one man "spend your way out of recession" campaign

Ideology, pure and simple, I think, Chris. Get the state out of as much as possible and open it up for private profit. I suspect many of them don't give a toss about who they rip off or how they make that money.

Beecroft, for instance, is one of the owners of wonga.com, so he's little more than glorified loan shark. That's a company that charges interest of over 4,000% on some loans ([iDaily Mail[/i January 2012).

Many of thos eloans to people who have become desparate through not having a job. So his "no-fault" sacking proposal may not have been so daft after all, well in his case anyway

The major problem with introducing mutualisation to national industries, certainly in the mannet the conservatives do it, is no covenants are enshrined to maintain mutuality beyond a relatively short (<10 years) time frame. So what tends to happen is the employees buy into the business and as it grows they then look to turn it public as soon as they can and realise the return on their "investment". If publicly owned entities are mutualised, then it should be on the JLP model with absolutely no option to float the organisation at any time in the future

The BBC's statistics programme "More or Less" have examined the Beecroft "report" www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hxtmp Unlike most reports to government it contains no annexe, or references, or back-up evidence, what it amounts to is a series of assertions by a Tory party donor. It is only 15 pages long! Tim Harford discusses it on the programme and "more or less" proves that if the country followed Mr Beecroft's recommendations we'd probably as a nation be worse off not better off.

The BBC's statistics programme "More or Less" have examined the Beecroft "report" www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hxtmp Unlike most reports to government it contains no annexe, or references, or back-up evidence, what it amounts to is a series of assertions by a Tory party donor. It is only 15 pages long! Tim Harford discusses it on the programme and "more or less" proves that if the country followed Mr Beecroft's recommendations we'd probably as a nation be worse off not better off.