So, start a thread and then can't make a contribution?

Not a sign of great intellectual powers or even a basic capacity to think for oneself.

This sort of drivel has been shown up, time and again, on these boards, for being just that.

But then, you're a drivelling idiot.

In your mind, people should just buckle under – even if that means having to choose between paying a bill or buying food, as is happening, to working people, right now.

You're the sort of drivelling idiot who believes all the hate-filled bile that the 'Mail' spouts about public service workers. You lap it up and get off on it without ever daring to consider whether its true.

You help that hypocritical piece of trash spread its brand of hate porn – because you get off on it.

You're still incapable of comprehending what caused the financial crisis and the ongoing recession – there was growth in the economy and employment had stabilised when this lot took office, FFS – and you simply continue to spout the usual idiocy, without any regard for what is happening.

Oh no, in your pathetic little world, it's all those bin men and dinnerladies and nurses and 999 call centre staff and medical secretaries who are to blame – and how dare they expect a decent living wage? How dare they not take year-on-year pay cuts and expect not to have to choose between food and fuel. You do, after all – except that, of course, you don't.

Oh yes – let everyone else rot while the very rich continue to line their own pockets at the expense of everybody else. Just as long as you're okay.

How dare you expect that working people continue to suffer – and then suffer even more – for something that they did not cause, and when it's not even f**king working on the government's own cretinous terms!

How f**king dare you.

Nastiness. Utter nastiness and inhumanity, coupled with utter ignorance and economic illiteracy.

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?

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

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?

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

Even by your standards that is an embarrassing post.

Let's repeat the actually questions I asked – and see if you can attempt answers, instead of dodging again.



And it could not have been as "embarrassing" as this:



You simply accepted something, which happened to suit your prejudices, as fact.

The problem is that Union leaders generally set their members agenda for their own ends, rather than the other way round. As a result, they represent a threat to stable, democratic government. Instead, of leaders creating the agenda, then balloting for strike action perhaps the law should be changed such that a strike ballot can only be called when a quorum of unsolicited members ask their union to establish a ballot? That I could accept as fair and reasonable.

The thing you do not seem to understand is that privatisation of utilities, the railways, PO, etc (and which has now spread to the NHS) has come about not for any economic reason but to break up the power of unions with national memberships to hold the whole country (and thereby democracy and freedom) to ransom. If union leaders had always acted responsibly and in their members best interests (rather that what, at best, they consider in their wisdom to be their members best interests) then we would not continue to see the destruction of the good things in our society.

TBH, they should just tug their forelocks and get back to work the lazy barstewards

This is BS, based (I assume) on ignorance of reality.

And believe you me, I know a shed load more about the subject than you do. And that is a fact.



More Dally BS.



Well done on not even remotely answering the questions I asked. In that, you indicate either your inability to do so or your unwillingness, since you don't like the conclusions you'd be forced to reach.

And the only reason for privatisation, in the face of facts, is private profit for the likes of The Minister for Murdoch and his nose-in-the-trough mates.

But go on – you keep supporting corrupt and venal behaviour, and trying to pretend it's about something different.

Fair enough, I'll take your (or the TUC's) word on it, though it was the BBC News that reported this, and I've never known them to have any particular need to throw mud at the Unions.

I must say though, that CV of hers is awfully vague....I'm guessing among all that 'voluntary' work, there was plenty of feathering of her nest, in anticipation of the comfy lifestyle she can now look forward to enjoying, leading the sheep in their demonstrations.

Feel free to guess – and feel free to prove that your guess is even remotely near the truth.

I look forward to hearing back from you when you have sourced the evidence to prove your suggestions.

Incidentally, the BBC is dismally anti-union/labour movement. But hey, let's not facts get in the way, etc ...

Hey, I'm willing to go along with you, its just what I've read and heard and about her suggests another classic Union leader, who enjoys fighting the good fight while having a very comfortable existance.

The bit I've read about jumping from studying politics straight to a job at the T & G union, then onto the TUC indicates somebody with little 'real life' experience, an accusation people like to band about at the modern day politicians of all persuasions.

Its good to see the Unions aren't averse to following the party line over such matters.

Oh, reality again. Are you related to Sal?

Which questions do you refer to? There was a series of what I assumed were ranting, rhetorical ones. Are those the ones?

Dally, I'm a public sector worker. I earn about £17 000 a year. I am barred from looking at this forum from 8:30 to "dinnertime" and from then to end of shift.
You are in the private sector but have the time to read and post in the working day.
Why aren't you working?

I am self-employed. If I mess about I earn not a penny, just like I didn't when I went on holiday recently. My choice.

Now, let's try some logic, shall we?

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?

Bankers' pay, perchance, for screwing up the country?



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

They were not at all rhetorical.

You started this thread to have a big whinge at those nasty trades unions, because the nasty trades unions have said that their members might strike over successive pay cuts. Thus, since you started this thread about exactly that, answer the questions:



As Chris said, this is what you appear to be suggesting:

Did the games REALLY ''Bring The Country Together(tm)'' like we're constantly being spoonfed?

IMO it's only succeeded in making some rich people richer, corporations richer, and some bandwagon soundbites for the 'arris-holes in the Government

Ok:



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.



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



I do not.



See above.

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



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.



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.

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.

I have never said that.

I [ihave[/i 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 [iincrease[/i 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.

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.

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

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.