The Politics Thread

[Cambridge Batch Red]

How can trade union influence endanger both patients and staff? Unison have a minimum staffing campaign to avoid another mid-staffs.

[chipdawg]

But it comes down to politics really. You feel state interference is a negative, I feel it's a necessity

That's such an honest comment, and I thank you for it...but can you point to anything where the state does anything well, where it does anything better or more efficiently than the private sector.

The biggest issue we have with state/local authorities in this country is that they are employment schemes for those who wouldn't survive in the public sector.

My wife was a nurse, highly skilled and qualified as an SRN(RGN), RMN and at one stage in her career as a burns and reconstructive surgery sister, which was both hugely traumatic but also rewarding due to the absolute tragedy and personal distress she had to deal with, her last job was in elderly/mentally/infirm, dealing with mostly very disturbed people at the end of their lives.

She packed up two years ago after 35 years due to the politics, bureaucracy and trades union influence which she felt was a danger to both patients and staff.

We have too much state, too much tax and not enough local accountability, I had hoped Scotland would win last week because it would have been a concrete example of a diminishing state and decentralisation.

Well self-regulation of the financial sector and the print media has been a roaring success. And if you have a problem with a nuisance neighbour I'd be interested to see what part of the private sector would deal with that. There are undoubtedly areas of the public sector that could be privatised and as someone who works in the public sector, I'd argue that running councils like businesses where appropriate would improve the service. But there are functions that the public sector perform that private industry won't want to do, but need to be done. So it's not a question of who does it better or more efficiently, it's about getting someone to do it. I would also add that as someone who works in the public sector, I find your sweeping generalisation that it's "an employment scheme for people who wouldn't survive in the private sector" very insulting. I've worked on both sides of the argument and I'm surviving just fine thank you

As for tax, well if everyone paid their fair share of tax we 'd all be paying less right now, but I'm sure a deregulated tax system or a privatised HMRC would sort that out in a jiffy

[Come on Eileen]

There are two questions so I'll go for simplicity and answer the latter first, trades unions have two functions, the primary is to protect members interests and the secondary is to promote its political agenda, I'm not sure if patient/customer care comes third but if it does it's certainly not helpful to good patient care...does that help?

Moving on to the other question it's all about efficiency, you might ask the question why does a health service that serves 70 million or so need to be the 5th largest employer in the world, is it because it's the most efficient it's hardly the only national health service in the world, why does it need to be a larger employer than education that deals with more people daily for instance, why does it employ more non patient facing staff than doctors, nurses and physiotherapist...easy answer it's an employment opportunity for guess who?...trades union members.

The reason why the public sector in this country is so poor is because it's so big it's unaccountable, paid for by other peoples taxes, protected by statute, self policing, self perpetuating, over paid, the last bastion of trades unionism, and it has so many layers...the government comprising of ministers, special advisors, MPs, their staffs, civil servants, various ministries, statutory authorities, devolved authorities, metropolitan authorities, county councils, city councils, parish councils, police authorities, health trusts, the white fish authority, fire and ambulance trusts, the BBC, local licensing bodies, the CPS, Army, Navy, Air Force, the list is endless and what do they all do?, is it necessary? Could it be done better? Does it need to be done at all? Take the last 3, each has it's own management structure, Admirals, Field Marshalls, Air Marshalls and their staffs, couldn't we just have one for all of the military, do we need a Fleet Air Arm as well as a Royal Air Force? Do we really need 30 odd police force management teams, can't the same be said about the rest of the emergency services?

I think private sector is better than public because it won't tolerate inefficiency, sadly the public sector has no incentive to promote efficiency.

[Barrs Court Red]

How can trade union influence endanger both patients and staff? Unison have a minimum staffing campaign to avoid another mid-staffs.

 

That happened under the last Labour government?

[Barrs Court Red]

There are two questions so I'll go for simplicity and answer the latter first, trades unions have two functions, the primary is to protect members interests and the secondary is to promote its political agenda, I'm not sure if patient/customer care comes third but if it does it's certainly not helpful to good patient care...does that help?

Moving on to the other question it's all about efficiency, you might ask the question why does a health service that serves 70 million or so need to be the 5th largest employer in the world, is it because it's the most efficient it's hardly the only national health service in the world, why does it need to be a larger employer than education that deals with more people daily for instance, why does it employ more non patient facing staff than doctors, nurses and physiotherapist...easy answer it's an employment opportunity for guess who?...trades union members.

The reason why the public sector in this country is so poor is because it's so big it's unaccountable, paid for by other peoples taxes, protected by statute, self policing, self perpetuating, over paid, the last bastion of trades unionism, and it has so many layers...the government comprising of ministers, special advisors, MPs, their staffs, civil servants, various ministries, statutory authorities, devolved authorities, metropolitan authorities, county councils, city councils, parish councils, police authorities, health trusts, the white fish authority, fire and ambulance trusts, the BBC, local licensing bodies, the CPS, Army, Navy, Air Force, the list is endless and what do they all do?, is it necessary? Could it be done better? Does it need to be done at all? Take the last 3, each has it's own management structure, Admirals, Field Marshalls, Air Marshalls and their staffs, couldn't we just have one for all of the military, do we need a Fleet Air Arm as well as a Royal Air Force? Do we really need 30 odd police force management teams, can't the same be said about the rest of the emergency services?

I think private sector is better than public because it won't tolerate inefficiency, sadly the public sector has no incentive to promote efficiency.

 

The private sector is just as bad for inefficiency at times.  I've worked on both public and private contracts and saw little difference in terms of output.  The big difference is the lack of financial shrewdness from the public sector in terms of commercial contract negotiating.  The cause is the inability for public organisations to recruit skilled staff at the market rate.  One of the most inspiring people I've ever met was a public sector employee of a smaller sized quango.  Vastly experienced in balancing the books, they were brought into the organisation to make cost savings.  Brutally effective but was open and honest to his staff.  Being able to give an engaging and persuasive argument of the changes to be made, he kept staff "onside".  The papers had a field day over his salary, and he left shortly after the storm, his work incomplete and the end result muddled due to changes. 

 

Another side of the coin, a well known engineering firm made "efficiency" savings by making many of their long term engineers redundant.  All that experience gone.  It had a detrimental impact on the companies business.  

 

It's right that taxpayers expect value for money, but that isn't necessarily what outsourcing brings, again, mainly down to shoddy contracts. 

[Come on Eileen]

[WTFiGO!?!]

Nobody forced me to do anything but unlike many of the modern day young, back in the 1970's most people had a sense of pride in working to provide for their family and took jobs that they normally wouldn't and not just sponge off of the state.

Union closed shops were an abuse of human rights even back then, as was the practice of having part of the union levy going to one political party.

Does that answer your question?.

Sorry mate but what do you mean by young people taking jobs they normally wouldn't? Most of the young, employed people I know are in jobs that they only do because of their pride in self-sufficiency.

Population might have grown but the young are alive and proud and are taking jobs that they normally wouldn't, given choice.

[chipdawg]

There are two questions so I'll go for simplicity and answer the latter first, trades unions have two functions, the primary is to protect members interests and the secondary is to promote its political agenda, I'm not sure if patient/customer care comes third but if it does it's certainly not helpful to good patient care...does that help?

Moving on to the other question it's all about efficiency, you might ask the question why does a health service that serves 70 million or so need to be the 5th largest employer in the world, is it because it's the most efficient it's hardly the only national health service in the world, why does it need to be a larger employer than education that deals with more people daily for instance, why does it employ more non patient facing staff than doctors, nurses and physiotherapist...easy answer it's an employment opportunity for guess who?...trades union members.

The reason why the public sector in this country is so poor is because it's so big it's unaccountable, paid for by other peoples taxes, protected by statute, self policing, self perpetuating, over paid, the last bastion of trades unionism, and it has so many layers...the government comprising of ministers, special advisors, MPs, their staffs, civil servants, various ministries, statutory authorities, devolved authorities, metropolitan authorities, county councils, city councils, parish councils, police authorities, health trusts, the white fish authority, fire and ambulance trusts, the BBC, local licensing bodies, the CPS, Army, Navy, Air Force, the list is endless and what do they all do?, is it necessary? Could it be done better? Does it need to be done at all? Take the last 3, each has it's own management structure, Admirals, Field Marshalls, Air Marshalls and their staffs, couldn't we just have one for all of the military, do we need a Fleet Air Arm as well as a Royal Air Force? Do we really need 30 odd police force management teams, can't the same be said about the rest of the emergency services?

I think private sector is better than public because it won't tolerate inefficiency, sadly the public sector has no incentive to promote efficiency.

As I said in the first instance, that is a political preference and one that I don't share but one that you are obviously entitled to. However, let me pose a simple scenario against your deregulated, minimum government utopia. Let's say there is no local authority (or equivalent) in your area and you have domestic rubbish you wish to dispose of. Now you would no doubt be able to pay a firm to collect said rubbish and market competition may dictate that said rubbish collection service takes up only a fraction of the council tax you previously paid. However, your neighbour doesn't want to pay for it so he leaves it to fester in his front garden. Occasionally he burns his waste and thick, acrid smoke drifts across your property and into your open window. Meanwhile, one of the aforementioned waste collection services decides that the best way to reduce costs is to avoid dumping in privatised landfills and deposits a vast pile of domestic waste at the entrance to the field opposite your house. All of this attracts rats and other vermin. Who is going to sort all this out in your brave new world?

All layers of government in this country could almost certainly be improved and made more efficient and I am of the view that governments have a moral obligation to ensure that public funds are spent in as efficient a way as possible, but what you seem to want is a fantasy that only functions on paper. I would suggest Somalia to be an ideal destination if you wish to reap the benefits of 'light touch' governance

[Barrs Court Red]

Opps it appears Ed Miliband left out a whole section of his speech....because he forgot it.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Sorry mate but what do you mean by young people taking jobs they normally wouldn't? Most of the young, employed people I know are in jobs that they only do because of their pride in self-sufficiency.

Population might have grown but the young are alive and proud and are taking jobs that they normally wouldn't, given choice.

 

Back then turn down jobs offered = not a chance of benefit, nowadays it is a right and you don't even have to prove that you are actively seeking employment, where is the incentive in that?.

 

You have probably answered your own question, but it has been estimated that at least as many of 25% of youth unemployed (16 - 24 year olds) do not want any employment.

 

it's a vicious circle many of the youth unemployed who do want to work but they have been wildly let down by an education system that seeks to teach them stuff they do not need to know, 'because it's in the curriculum' but they leave school unable to properly read, write and do basic maths (what used to be known as the 3 R's) our education system is not fit for purpose and only serves those who can cope with the ridiculous exams/league tables, perhaps it's now time to prepare as many of the kids who cannot cope with our school results driven ethos for life in the outside world and just concentrate on the 3 R's in their case.

[Red-Robbo]

I agree, for instance I have never understood why union leaders are entitled to 6 figure wages, they should get the same basic wage as the people they represent + all out of pocket expenses IMO.

 

 

I can't quite see what closed-shop practices of the 70s has to do with taxpayers having to subsidise stingy multinational companies, but I will answer your question.

 

Just as you wouldn't expect the CEO of a company employing a million people to earn the same as the janitor who unlocks his office in the morning, nor should you expect a union leader - or anyone else leading any sort of massive organisation - to earn a paltry salary.

 

Not only are these jobs very full-on, 24/7 posts with bags of responsibilities and stress, but you want the most able to be in these positions. To do this you pay rewards commensurate.

 

With the amalgamations unions went through in the 90s, they are now very large and complex bodies, often involved in a whole range of activities for their members, it's not just Fred Kite "us v the management" stuff.

 

I agree there is a limit to what the salary scale should be, but the thing is, they don't pluck figures out of the air, salaries have to be agreed by general assemblies, giving - in effect - every member a say in them. You might argue that the considerably higher salaries enjoyed by executives that the union leaders have to deal with are often subject to shareholder scrutiny, although as we know, large institutional investors who make up shareholding majorities on most listed companies just tend to nod through whatever rise the board thinks they can get away with.

 

Of course, unlike many managers, union leaders will all have had experience of earning the ordinary salaries of the people they represent as they will have been drawn from those self-same people.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I can't quite see what closed-shop practices of the 70s has to do with taxpayers having to subsidise stingy multinational companies, but I will answer your question.

 

Just as you wouldn't expect the CEO of a company employing a million people to earn the same as the janitor who unlocks his office in the morning, nor should you expect a union leader - or anyone else leading any sort of massive organisation - to earn a paltry salary.

 

Not only are these jobs very full-on, 24/7 posts with bags of responsibilities and stress, but you want the most able to be in these positions. To do this you pay rewards commensurate.

 

With the amalgamations unions went through in the 90s, they are now very large and complex bodies, often involved in a whole range of activities for their members, it's not just Fred Kite "us v the management" stuff.

 

I agree there is a limit to what the salary scale should be, but the thing is, they don't pluck figures out of the air, salaries have to be agreed by general assemblies, giving - in effect - every member a say in them. You might argue that the considerably higher salaries enjoyed by executives that the union leaders have to deal with are often subject to shareholder scrutiny, although as we know, large institutional investors who make up shareholding majorities on most listed companies just tend to nod through whatever rise the board thinks they can get away with.

 

Of course, unlike many managers, union leaders will all have had experience of earning the ordinary salaries of the people they represent as they will have been drawn from those self-same people.

 

it was a point that i'm sure all of us can find things within the political landscape of the UK or should I now say England?, something Ed can answer one day in the future perhaps?.

 

A good defence of union leaders salaries, but another anomaly that flies in the face of socialism and yes they have a lot of responsibility but like in the case of Scargill for instance still better than working at the coal face, not that he ever did.

[Portland Bill]

Back then turn down jobs offered = not a chance of benefit, nowadays it is a right and you don't even have to prove that you are actively seeking employment, where is the incentive in that?.

.

Sorry Esmond but your obviously out of touch with what it's like here now.

Your 100% wrong,you only have to be late for a job centre meeting nowadays and they stop your benefits.

You have to keep a record of every job you apply for and prove it,or you get no benefits.

[Red-Robbo]

it was a point that i'm sure all of us can find things within the political landscape of the UK or should I now say England?, something Ed can answer one day in the future perhaps?.

 

A good defence of union leaders salaries, but another anomaly that flies in the face of socialism and yes they have a lot of responsibility but like in the case of Scargill for instance still better than working at the coal face, not that he ever did.

 

You need to read up on Scargill. He was a miner for 19 years. Like most so-called "union barons", he knew what working conditions are like, he'd experienced them.

 

You seem to have this strange thing about socialism where you confuse it with some sort of monastic order. There's nothing in socialism that says people doing very hard jobs shouldn't be paid more than those doing comparatively easier ones....

[Portland Bill]

Edit

[Cambridge Batch Red]

That happened under the last Labour government?

The red Tories? Very little trade union influence there.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

You need to read up on Scargill. He was a miner for 19 years. Like most so-called "union barons", he knew what working conditions are like, he'd experienced them.

 

You seem to have this strange thing about socialism where you confuse it with some sort of monastic order. There's nothing in socialism that says people doing very hard jobs shouldn't be paid more than those doing comparatively easier ones....

 

A miner who never worked underground. The man is a saint, who voted himself as president for life (a bit like Mugabe in Zimbabwe), gave himself a nice little grace and favour flat in one of the more expensive parts of that London, that he is still fighting to retain it rent free.

 

Ah, All people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Like risking your life underground for 8 hours a day mining coal in comparison to being a union leader, I agree with you totally.

[chipdawg]

A miner who never worked underground. The man is a saint, who voted himself as president for life (a bit like Mugabe in Zimbabwe), gave himself a nice little grace and favour flat in one of the more expensive parts of that London, that he is still fighting to retain it rent free.

Ah, All people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Like risking your life underground for 8 hours a day mining coal in comparison to being a union leader, I agree with you totally.

I have to say, I work with a number of ex-miners and the offspring of ex-miners and Scargill is not that popular a man in the pit villages of South Yorkshire

[Portland Bill]

A miner who never worked underground. The man is a saint, who voted himself as president for life (a bit like Mugabe in Zimbabwe), gave himself a nice little grace and favour flat in one of the more expensive parts of that London, that he is still fighting to retain it rent free.

Ah, All people are equal, but some are more equal than others. Like risking your life underground for 8 hours a day mining coal in comparison to being a union leader, I agree with you totally.

Scargill was slaughtered by the right wing press,it even turns out that MI5 were involved in a campaign to smear and belittle him.

But,Scargill was 100% correct when he said that Thatcher and Heseltine were planning to close 70 economic pits, secret papers released recently go to prove this.

Hillsborough and the miners strike are similar in respect of government lies and cover ups.

I trust a union leader a million times more than any Tory.

[Red-Robbo]

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Scargill was slaughtered by the right wing press,it even turns out that MI5 were involved in a campaign to smear and belittle him.

But,Scargill was 100% correct when he said that Thatcher and Heseltine were planning to close 70 economic pits, secret papers released recently go to prove this.

Hillsborough and the miners strike are similar in respect of government lies and cover ups.

I trust a union leader a million times more than any Tory.

 

it's with great interest watching the debate about UK involvement on air strikes in Iraq and to watch Ed and his front most of whom have blood on their hands from 2003, sanctimoniously telling the country what is right and what is wrong, do you trust them as well?, your point about the tories is mute as you well know, they are all a bag of shite IMO.

[Red-Robbo]

it's with great interest watching the debate about UK involvement on air strikes in Iraq and to watch Ed and his front most of whom have blood on their hands from 2003, sanctimoniously telling the country what is right and what is wrong, do you trust them as well?, your point about the tories is mute as you well know, they all a bag of shite IMO.

But Miliband, unlike Cameron, opposed the Iraq War, Es....

[Portland Bill]

it's with great interest watching the debate about UK involvement on air strikes in Iraq and to watch Ed and his front most of whom have blood on their hands from 2003, sanctimoniously telling the country what is right and what is wrong, do you trust them as well?, your point about the tories is mute as you well know, they all a bag of shite IMO.

I could count the amount of MP's I trust on one hand.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But Miliband, unlike Cameron, opposed the Iraq War, Es....

 

Indeed he wasn't even an MP then, but given the office he attained very early on in his political career are you actually suggesting he would have voted against the war?, Jesus RR even Red Dawn the left wing firebrand voted in favour of it. 

 

As for Cameron yes he supported on the evidence supplied by Blair and his other lying cohorts, it's just yet another cowardly way of trying to deflect the shame of the last Labour government by Ed and the many still in senior roles within the labour party who voted for war as they try to defend the indefensible.

 

Just like the people who try to suggest that Iraq is a safer place now.

 

[Red-Robbo]

Indeed he wasn't even an MP then, but given the office he attained very early on in his political career are you actually suggesting he would have voted against the war?, Jesus RR even Red Dawn the left wing firebrand voted in favour of it.

As for Cameron yes he supported on the evidence supplied by Blair and his other lying cohorts, it's just yet another cowardly way of trying to deflect the shame of the last Labour government by Ed and the many still in senior roles within the labour party who voted for war as they try to defend the indefensible.

Just like the people who try to suggest that Iraq is a safer place now.

Well he spoke against it, so I'll assume he would have voted against it. I wonder how much else of the Mail/Sun/Telegraph campaign against EM you'll regurgitate. Maybe that he "can't eat a bacon butty" - on the basis of a freeze-framed unflattering picture.

Re: Iraq. I'd say any MP who voted for it shares the shame in voting to commit troops to something that A) didn't concern us and B) on the basis of evidence they hadn't seen or properly assessed.

I speak as someone who went on the completely ignored. million-person anti-war protest before the vote for action was held.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Well he spoke against it, so I'll assume he would have voted against it. I wonder how much else of the Mail/Sun/Telegraph campaign against EM you'll regurgitate. Maybe that he "can't eat a bacon butty" - on the basis of a freeze-framed unflattering picture.

Re: Iraq. I'd say any MP who voted for it shares the shame in voting to commit troops to something that A) didn't concern us and B) on the basis of evidence they hadn't seen or properly assessed.

I speak as someone who went on the completely ignored. million-person anti-war protest before the vote for action was held.

 

Ed won't need my help RR, 8 months is a long time in politics and his dithering stance on English votes for English matters, will haunt him.

 

Yep, that's the party line 'not me gov' + C) full of lies/45 minutes from disaster.

[Red-Robbo]

Ed won't need my help RR, 8 months is a long time in politics and his dithering stance on English votes for English matters, will haunt him.

Yep, that's the party line 'not me gov' + C) full of lies/45 minutes from disaster.

You keep bringing up totally irrelevant stuff. What's English devolution got to do with what we were talking about?!

I responded to a post that implied that Ed Miliband had "blood on his hands " regarding the Iraq War. He opposed and spoke against the conflict, so you were wrong there.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

You keep bringing up totally irrelevant stuff. What's English devolution got to do with what we were talking about?!

I responded to a post that implied that Ed Miliband had "blood on his hands " regarding the Iraq War. He opposed and spoke against the conflict, so you were wrong there.

 

The first line of your last reply that I was responding to was a general point and I gave a general reply.

 

Where exactly in my post did I imply Ed had blood on his hands?, I said "Ed and his front bench most of whom have blood on their hands from 2003", my implication being that most of his front bench have blood on their hands, siting like nodding dogs that have suddenly developed a conscience and forgetting their shameful past.

[Red-Robbo]

The first line of your last reply that I was responding to was a general point and I gave a general reply.

Where exactly in my post did I imply Ed had blood on his hands?, I said "Ed and his front bench most of whom have blood on their hands from 2003", my implication being that most of his front bench have blood on their hands, siting like nodding dogs that have suddenly developed a conscience and forgetting their shameful past.

As I said, you could say that about most MPs, although not the current leader of the Labour Party or those others of all parties who opposed the war.

In my view this present vote is also wrong and actually makes this country more unsafe.

We should be providing intelligence and military aid to those fighting IS, but not some tokenistic RAF presence. Particularly when many countries a lot nearer are not getting involved.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

As I said, you could say that about most MPs, although not the current leader of the Labour Party or those others of all parties who opposed the war.

In my view this present vote is also wrong and actually makes this country more unsafe.

We should be providing intelligence and military aid to those fighting IS, but not some tokenistic RAF presence. Particularly when many countries a lot nearer are not getting involved.

 

and guess what I agree, I watched the detestable George Galloway on This Week, last night and I agreed with what he said "this is Turkey's, Saudi Arabia, Syria's and Iraq's fight and not ours" and watching him wipe the floor with the vile Jacqui Smith cheered me up as well, it was very strange he was very respectful to Michael Portillo and never crossed swords with him at all but he got very angry with Smith.

 

I did feel guilty after I realised that I agreed with Galloway and took a shower very soon afterwards.