Are you alright? Seriously. I think you might be having a turn. You're forgetting things you've recently said, making things up, thinking you've asked me questions when you haven't.

Have you answered the questions put to you by lots of people including me yet?

I'm still waiting for you to answer what was a simple and direct question raised entirely by your own simplistic claims.

Still waiting.

Ah, one day your Prince will come.....

But seriously, if you are going to post such nonsense as" how much is a Soicialist worth", then you can have as many hissy fits as you like, I doubt anyone will be seriously d to give it serious consideration.

That said, it appears circa £130k seems to be the salary for incompetence, be it being the posterboy for retro Unions, or the equally unattractive former head of Harringey Social Services.

I rather like [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2479260/Julie-Bindel-Sharon-Shoesmith-pay-Not-shred-humility-Not-jot-contrition.htmlJulie Bindel's[/url acerbic appraisal of this woman. Although, it should be remembered that it was an Ed Balls cockup, and poor Legal advice that opened the door to her unfair dismissal claim.

I didn't.

And Bindel should suit you: she's a nasty misandrist and extremist.

OK ... we clearly differ on that one.
I believe there has to be a limit or some kind of brake on the multiple, as part of a fairer, more balanced society, reason being that it makes life better for more people.
You seem not to care about that at all and the gap can continue widening ... ultimately that would mean virtually all the wealth in the hands of a tiny percentage and all the rest would be allowed only what makes them productive.
I struggle to see a great deal of difference between that and slavery.


That's a bit vague David, you'll need to say what it is that McCluskey preaches but does not practise.
It does sound like you are defining his socialism for him, at the moment it sounds like you're saying that Ratcliffe can have as much as he likes but McCluskey's 5x is somehow immoral.
Is Ratcliffe practising what he preaches? Must his workforce lose out so that he makes more money and, if so, is that somehow more moral than a Union official on a 5x multiple?


He didn't ... but he tried ... and that's his job.
According to your initial post, he should have simply acceded to whatever Ratcliffe said.
However, that was not my point ... I was making the point that, in the tussle about who gets what from Ineos (i.e. Ratcliffe or his employees), McCluskey's salary is not part of the negotiation nor is it in any slightest way relevant to the argument about the strike/settlement/dispute.

BTW - DISCLAIMER
I am not a member of a trades union and have not been since I was apprenticed and fell out with the union about the political levy.
I paid my dues but not the levy and, after several months, the convener (a bullying pr!ck) interpreted that as being behind in my dues and would not accept my membership without the levy, so I told him where to stick it.
I mention this only to illustrate that I am in no way a Union apologist.

Brilliant, so that means that other ordinary persons can't possibly be facing any cuts, any zero hours working or any job insecurity.
Very logical.
Thanks for your input.

You'll wait a long time. It's over 4 days since I asked some very simple questions that required simple answers and all I've had back is attempted swerves and some more stuff made up out of thin air. Still, it's par for the course for our right wingers.

He might as well have stated, [i''Qu'ils mangent de la brioche''.[/i

Perfect.


From now on I shall refer to him/her as Marie.

I'm gonna stick with [i2@[/i

Absolute nonsense. You don't even know how to read a dictionary if that is what you think.

The dictionaries definition of socialism is this [uin its entirety[/u:

[inoun
[mass noun

[list[*a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
[/*:m
[*policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.[/*:m[/list:u


The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy[/i

Not this just this:

[ia political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.[/i

If the bits you deliberately omitted where [inot[/i part of the Oxford's Dictionaries definition of socialism [uthey would not have included them[/u!

They understand what Socialism is. You don't.

Nonsense.

It's anything he doesn't like.

If you stand at the extreme right wing end of the spectrum and look leftwards, NHS provision is socialist, benefits and the welfare state are socialist, state education is socialist, [uanything[/u provided free at the point of supply by the government is socialist.
But many people (including many Tories) who see these things as normal and desirable wouldn't describe themselves as socialists.

If you stand at the extreme left wing end of the spectrum and look rightwards, anything short of total state ownership, state control of production, suppression of market forces and control of supply and demand could well look suspiciously like capitalism.
But many people (including many Lefties) who see markets and capitalism as useful tools wouldn't describe themselves as right wing or capitalists.

So, I have no idea what a "supposed" socialist is and I find that the word usually requires some accompanying qualifier to denote the degree of socialism that is meant.

IMHO, where Sal Paradise goes wrong is ...
a) In using the term purely as a pejorative
b) Failing to recognise that any economic system short of absolutely total market freedom and laissez faire capitalism is probably socialist to [usome[/u degree. e.g. Medicaid in the US is socialist (and roundly condemned by many Republicans as Communist

).
c) Conflating terms such as Communism, Marxism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Totalitarianism, Social Democracy, Socialism, The People's Front of Judea etc etc as all being the same thing.

It's ironic that many right wingers who use "Socialist" as a pejorative are happy to be protected by, and actively encourage, a "Socialist" armed forces and national defence

Bitter much?

She can be a bit caustic in her use of the English language, the Gender Bender article that upset a noisy minority a few years back sticks in my mind. A radical feminist lesbian writer and journalist with a definite Left Wing political stance, who is not afraid to stand up to the bigots and Politically Correct within all sections of society...... should have thought her picture would have been plastered all over your bedoom walls.

I recommend her [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2424073/Why-fellow-feminists-shamefully-silent-tyranny-veil-asks-JULIE-BINDEL.htmlarticle[/url of a few weeks ago. Although I suspect there will be the usual suspects huffing and puffing on here.

That is simply a bonus.

In Julie's world, all men are rapists – so that's you then, isn't it, you nasty little raping bar steward?

Of course, you have a lot in common: being extremist trolls, for starters.

Why the fascination with people's appearance?


I'm not keen on Shoesmith either but I decided that all by myself without the assistance of a low-fact rant from Julie Bindel.
In that article there is absolutely no analysis of Shoesmith's job or what she did or did not do.
In short, a total sharticle(*)

Also, apart from some fragile and tenuous "incompetence" connection, it has feckall to do with the Grangemouth dispute.



(*) © Southstander.com

Ya boo! Again

Yet again, you add nothing.

Do you ever have an actual thought of your own, or do you just cling to other people's coat tails, a but like a sort of brain-dead limpet?

This post added something did it Mintball?

Strange how you didn't pick this one out as 'not adding anything too'.

Absolutely no need to insult limpets Minty.

We must agree to differ I would suspect that given both descriptions were started with a bullet point they are separate, if not they would be all under the same bullet point would you not agree? Of course you wouldn't!! I just picked one description from a million I could have chosen.

I suspect there isn't a person on here who could give a succinct definitive definition of Socialism - and that includes you and Mintball.

I shall try to explain it in simple terms.

You NEVER add anything.

He does – at least on occasion.

So up your game – or maybe risk losing your posting rights.

And the same applies to all the trolls on here who add nothing. Ever.