Not sure if it's still the case, but back in the Eighties even the managers in most large German companies belonged to a union and they were utterly bewildered by the antagonistic relationship between management and workers in many UK companies.

Quote ="major hound"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.'" I know it's been mentioned elsewhere (by Cod'ead, if memory serves), but the main reason that Vauxhall were seriously considering closing the plant on Merseyside was precisely because it's already easier in the UK to get rid of workers, of jobs and move a company elsewhere than it is anywhere else in western Europe. But then, I don't think that sort of logic has much to with this, frankly. All it is is an ideological hatred of the state – ergo any regulation that impinges upon a small number of people making ever increasing money for themselves. I suspect that's really what bemuses people a tad – the difficulty of believing that these people really don't care one iota about anything else.

Quote ="major hound"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.'" I know it's been mentioned elsewhere (by Cod'ead, if memory serves), but the main reason that Vauxhall were seriously considering closing the plant on Merseyside was precisely because it's already easier in the UK to get rid of workers, of jobs and move a company elsewhere than it is anywhere else in western Europe. But then, I don't think that sort of logic has much to with this, frankly. All it is is an ideological hatred of the state – ergo any regulation that impinges upon a small number of people making ever increasing money for themselves. I suspect that's really what bemuses people a tad – the difficulty of believing that these people really don't care one iota about anything else.

spot on

One of the things that bemuses me are the non-socialist views of what "socialist" means.
e.g. If you are not on the breadline, you mustn't have left-wing ideals or, if you do, you are a "champagne socialist".

Look on that You-tubey thing for the episode of HIGNFY, when Louise Mensch is literally disassembled by every other person on the panel for whingeing that the Occupy protesters had the audacity to buy coffees from Starbucks

I saw it when it was on the telly.
I loved Hislop's put-down of Mensch when he said that it wasn't worth explaining to her.

But the Tories always need to do this. When I first became interested in politics in the sixties, it was "they live in council houses, but can afford cars" In the seventies it was the same except "they can afford colour TV's"
I went on a coach trip to Tuscany in 1996 and (as Channel 4 have discovered) there's always someone on a coach who gets on everyone elses t!ts. This guy worked for the Tory party at elections and he'd updated to "they can afford Sky TV"
Presumably being able to afford Stabucks rip-off prices for indifferent coffee is the latest Tory bon mot.

It's cigarettes and beer these days...


I think it's actually cheape to be a champagne socialist these days, given the price of beer.

And completely ignoring the point that you'd need to travel a fair way from St Paul's to find a "Jim's Caff", knocking coffees out at 50p a cup

Let me just get a quick capitalist reality check here.

Does 'socialist' equal 'should not like better things in life'? If so, why?

I'm happy to be a Cava socialist - I can't tell the difference so I don't spend the extra money on champagne!

I love beer, sometimes – and I love champagne sometimes.

So goodness knows where that leaves me on the great scale of lazy political stereotypes.



I've always thought 'champagne socialist' was a daft comment. First, there's no 'rule' somewhere that tells socialist: 'thou shalt not drink the fizz'' – and old Fred will certainly have imbed some, while Charlie (who was a bit of a lad) will too, when he had the chance, no doubt.

But second, if you're going down that route, then surely the answer is simple: 'nothing's too good for the workers'? In which case, if the workers want beer, fine. If they want bubbly, equally fine. If they want water, there's nowt wrong with that either.

The idea that one's liking or otherwise for a specific drink is based on your class is idiocy.

Surely, it's not about taste but about ability to afford the stuff regularly? The point being that socialists who can are hypocrites as they spout equality but are happy personally to have more income / wealth than the masses. They could, of course, give their surplus income / wealth to those more needy than themselves rather than imbibe luxuriously expensive drinks. That would be the socialist think to do.

You're confused.
The one basic tenet that links all varieties of socialism (and there are many, even though you speak as if there is only one) is that of collective responsibility for those worse off or more needy.

Note that term "[ucollective[/u responsibility".

Let's say that I want people like myself to pay more in taxes to improve life for those at the bottom of the heap.
You would say "Fine, give your money to whoever you see fit and be happy at that", thereby demonstrating that you haven't grasped the term "collective responsibility".

Oh, I see.

I don't mind people insulting Socialists for being Socialists, if that's their opinion of Socialism then that's fine by me. I don't like Capitalism and will tell a Capitalist what I think of their position and the fact that they are one. The difference is a Capitalist won't refute he is one. That's the problem.

What I don't like, what I really, really don't like, is when people are accused of being a Socialist. I don't like it primarily because the fake leftists amongst the Labour and Liberal Democrat party then refute the accusation, as if it really is something they shouldn't be, something that they'd be ashamed to be. People want to remove themselves from Socialism, for some reason.

It's becoming a dirty word mainly because of the Statists on the left who actually aren't genuine Socialists, which is why they run away from the word, because in fairness it isn't a fair representation of who they are. There are very few true Socialists in the Labour or Lib Dem ranks today. Accuse a true leftist like Tony Benn that he's a Socialist and he'll be proud of it!

Unfortunately it is becoming a dirty word, arguably already is one, just as it is in America.

Work Experience coalition stylee:



Internships for fooking shop assistants?

Couple that to an extension of the Work for Nowt Programme and you can give me socialism any day of the week in whatever hue it comes.

And as I tweeted yesterday: online 'newspaper' @The_Upcoming advertises for free worker. www.gumtree.com/p/jobs/the-upcom ... /103212922 They want someone to work for free – to deadlines, of course, but at home (so using their own computer, internet connection, power etc etc). This isn't a charity or some sort of 'worthy' publication – it's entirely commercial. People talk about 'benefits scroungers', these people are skills scroungers.

And as I tweeted yesterday: online 'newspaper' @The_Upcoming advertises for free worker. www.gumtree.com/p/jobs/the-upcom ... /103212922 They want someone to work for free – to deadlines, of course, but at home (so using their own computer, internet connection, power etc etc). This isn't a charity or some sort of 'worthy' publication – it's entirely commercial. People talk about 'benefits scroungers', these people are skills scroungers.

Quote ="Mintball"And as I tweeted yesterday: online 'newspaper' @The_Upcoming advertises for free worker. www.gumtree.com/p/jobs/the-upcom ... /103212922 They want someone to work for free – to deadlines, of course, but at home (so using their own computer, internet connection, power etc etc). This isn't a charity or some sort of 'worthy' publication – it's entirely commercial. People talk about 'benefits scroungers', these people are skills scroungers.'" It's almost as if someone took a look at John Major's Victorian Values manual and thought "let's start with employment"

Quote ="Mintball"And as I tweeted yesterday: online 'newspaper' @The_Upcoming advertises for free worker. www.gumtree.com/p/jobs/the-upcom ... /103212922 They want someone to work for free – to deadlines, of course, but at home (so using their own computer, internet connection, power etc etc). This isn't a charity or some sort of 'worthy' publication – it's entirely commercial. People talk about 'benefits scroungers', these people are skills scroungers.'" It's almost as if someone took a look at John Major's Victorian Values manual and thought "let's start with employment"

Coddy - can I ask is that something you photographed youself or is it doing the rounds on some other website? (If the latter, do you know which?).

Cheers.

That internship advert - oh my goodness!

Yeah... I'm out of words.

Found some thanks to Mintball's link:

Wage wanted. Although I am not able to work for you, this is offers your organisation a fantastic opportunity to enjoy the reflected glory of association with my name. No time wasters.

'Twas on twitter yesterday

Thanks.