Why is it?

how many accidents have they been that to justify an extra guard, disabled passengers can be helped on to the train and off again at their station. On busy trains you never see the guard. There is simply no realistic justification for them given we now have automatic barrier at virtually every station. Loss of money more fool them I bet those who work directly for the union and are encouraging/agitating this dispute for their own selfish ends are no lossing any pay.

I catch the train to Manchester 3 times a week I would rather they spend the money shortening a 30 mile journey to respectible time frames

You're in the minority holding that view of those I've read on social media. Personally I feel much safer knowing there's a guard on board, especially on the last train out of Leeds or anywhere on the network on a Saturday.

Perhaps if the choice was reduced ticket costs and no guard or 15 minute time saving and no guard you might get a different answer.

Are you seriously saying a guard is going to prevent a serious case of violence caused by a fueled up thug - really?

Unions are in the business of halting progress e.g. Barbara Dean, Arthur Scargill, Len McCulskey they are are all the same. Fortunately Aitken handed McCluskey his backside.

How is that Unite still have a final salary scheme for its officials - funded by by its members who seldom have access to such a scheme - say everything you need to know about the higher up union bosses

I think that you are missing the point.
IF we are heading for some kind of environmental disaster or, far more frequent droughts/floods, caused by climate change, the one sure fire way to help would be for EVERONE to consume less (and protect the planets resources).
Unfortunately, in a consumer driven society (especially with the throw away culture that now seems to exist) there would have to be a monumental shift in just ow society is set up.
For everyone to consume less, travel less frequently etc, there would have to be a cataclysmic change in how EVERYONE leads their lives.

We would all have to accept earning far less etc but, how could the wings be clipped at the top of the food chain.
People who have revelled in ove consumption and who take pride in showing off their wealthy excesses.

I dont actually think it can be done and real change will only begin when it's too late.

The West will blame over population in the Far East and Asia and they, rightly will point out that while there is an issue with population numbers, they aren't to blame.

The irony of course, is that the 'progress' you speak of, is the exact same progress which has led to the grotesque wealth inequality you've challenged in the thread you started.

I disagree - all that unions are doing is making it more expensive for the average person to access the necessities of normal existence. They are blockers to progress - perhaps if they were more prepared to embrace new innovation and moving labour markets they might actually save more jobs.

Industry cannot stand still and it will always engineer people out of a process but it will also come up new products that need people to make them.

As I said were it a choice of cheaper tickets or a guard I guarantee most would opt for cheaper tickets.

Our economic system does a better job of protecting capital than of protecting workers. It is, after all, a capitalist system. A fairly extreme one, in practice and imo, but the one we’re familiar with, so it feels normal.

It should be at least as good to be born talented and hard-working as it is to be born wealthy.



I’m not sure that is true. In our lifetimes maybe, but technology is changing the world ever faster. It could be an opportunity for universal incomes and a leisure revolution, as was optimistically imagined in the 1970s. Now there’s an assumption that the machines will be owned by a few dozen maladjusted Bond villain super capitalists, who will probably hunt the rest of us for sport.

Or we just end up with more BS jobs... https://strikemag.org/bull-jobs/

Or we just end up with more BS jobs... https://strikemag.org/bull-jobs/

There are already too many humans on the planet , eventually we will destroy it , then the cockroaches get their turn

You may well be correct - however the human race does have a propensity to survival - Maslow's first level, we have already seen decreases in birth rates in more sophisticated societies

We (human beings) are too successful in breeding and survival for our own good and with greater numbers, increased life expectancy and the desire to consume more than to guy next door, this "success" will eventualy be our downfall.


Whilst some are still dying though starvation, others have greed which is just bloody horrible and they are happy to stuff themselves, whilst others die and spew out demands to "cut foreign aid" and "look after ourselves first".

If you look at the first generation of the truly wealthy the majority started with very little and they out-wealthed those that started with wealth for the very reason I stated if you stand still you will get passed by. There are exceptions Oligarchs and those in the middle east who own oil but they are in the minority. I would suggest its better to be born bright - the toffs need someone to invest in.


Compared to the industrial revolution not sure technology is moving faster what is moving very fast is medical science and this could be a real problem - is life expectancy going to be 120 in a hundred years?

Civilisation as we know it cannot continue , the developing nations now see the wealth the west has and want their share of it , so it's irrelevant what sort of population stagnation happens in the west

Politicians hope that science can prevent it , but it won't , once the oil starts to go things will become very nasty

As I now think back at the amount of natural resources and waste I personally have gone through in my 58 years , it is frightening , we are a parasite sucking the life out of the planet

Why?

These people you talk about all voted leave and their Facebook profile picture is of them, with “free Tommy” written underneath it

Ya back.

Because fall all its ills capitalism is still the best system yet divised to stimulate innovation and reward risk taking. The idea that the state owns everything and doles out pocket money to its populus doesn't appeal to me.

Socialism is great in theory it doesn't work in practise and the only people who truly prosper are those at the top that live like kings with greater access to the better things and it is in their interest to keep the population under control to protect their priviliged status.

You should have just given up there and then.

I don't think you have to choose either one or the other. I prefer a more moderate interpretation that sits somewhere in the middle and reins in the excesses of either system is best.

Agree a mixed economy works best - you are voting for the degree of control the government has - if you vote Corbyn the government will control more of the economy if you vote Tory less so I prefer the concept of the latter.

Problem with the left as I see it and I may be wrong - most are from well to do backgrounds Corbyn attended prep/grammar school something they would happily deny anyone else the opportunity to access. Abbott/Harman sent their kids to private school but thinks comprensive education is the way forward, David Lammy is another, Umunna anothrt etc.?

Therein lies the issue with the left - its about the elite left having access to things they would readily deny others. You cannot deny the human spirit's desire to better itself through hardwork/risk/innovation.

No, I only ever left the virtual terrace and still do not post on that forum.

Capitalism in its pure form results in a very small number of people owning virtually everything. Take the USA the capitalist champions, the richest 3 people in the USA own more than the poorest 130,000,000. I struggle to see how anyone can support or justify that system.

The state owning everything and giving out pocket money is communism not socialism.

You say socialism doesn’t work in practice, but the NHS is socialism in practice. So is free education and childcare, the police force, the fire brigade, the army. Why shouldn’t other public services such as the railways and other transport, utilities like water, electricity and gas be run in the same way as those organisations, to provide a service for the people, rather than to make profit for the few.

I think the degree of control the government has is exactly the point. Too much and you can stifle creativity and risk taking. Too little and you have too much risk taking leading to financial crises and people left in poverty.

The current choice seems to me to be between two parties that are light years apart from each other. I’m not sure either has the right idea. I’d argue the Conservatives have gone too far now with privatisation of some services and utilities being of no benefit except to a small monied elite that also happen to be Conservative party doners. Meanwhile I think Labour are being too ambitious with some of their plans and risk making a mess of any opportunity they might get by trying to do too much at too big a cost. In both cases I’d say dogma has got the better of them.

About right there , will sort itself out when we see a new realistic centre left leader of the labour party , Chuka Ummuna for me