It is an interesting one, politically. A populist policy that the tories can't go near.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Was interesting to see Tony Blair on Sky News last night and he refused to talk about Ed's speech and the new policies.
Would have expected him to come out and support Ed and his new policies.
Would have expected him to come out and support Ed and his new policies.
I don't think Blair really bothers hiding his contempt for Miliband, to be honest.
Yup. And it does Miliband the world of good.
Anyway, i honestly don't think there is a better political hack out there than Peter Oborne. Leaving aside partisan red and blue lines, in the past 24 hours I've read three articles by him, that could ONLY have been penned by him. Here they are:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9034691/daniel-finkelstein-lord-of-journalism/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...n-is-par-for-the-course-in-all-western-media/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...change-is-in-the-air-and-we-must-respond.html
That Finkelstein article is withering and goes against the Westminster bubble lobby mates protocol. I was paying attention on Twitter all day and i don't thinki seen one journo mention it. Only Jon Snow.
As for Humphreys, well it is just as sensational of a put down. I listened to it on the way to work and it was so obvious.
Everything he writes on the middle east is well researched, articulated and the balance provided is welcome from the hawkish claptrap offered up by the `establishment` media.
The Telegraph editors must hate being put in that situation. Is regularly contrary to their editorial line, but he is too good to let go.
Question Time is absolute gold right now 
Nice to see the NUT getting a hammering off a couple of people. People who want our education system to go backwards.
Eugh.
See what the education system has done to poor ol' bsc! - he can't even spell 'urgh' properly.
Will Self absolutely embarrassing himself. The lady on the panel is an absolute airhead too, sadly. Who even is she?
Gove and Alexander have both come across well.
Gove and Alexander have both come across well.
You back the NUT? I have so many stories about the people who run it. Arguably the worst union in the country and that's up against stiff competition.
Stop picking on the unions, Al. Top of the Premier League & you think you can lord it over the rest of us.
Stop picking on the unions, Al. Top of the Premier League & you think you can lord it over the rest of us.
Only one or two more weekends for you to survive, I imagine!
I fancy Arsenal for at least the top 3 this season, chief.
I'm off to your homeland this weekend to see if you're right. I hope it's developed into at least the 1990's by now.
Did you mean "1890's"?I support all unions, forgive me for not asking for your anecdotal evidence on how shit they are.
Nit a single pannelist came across well. The politicians too partisan. The journalists too weak. That blonde was too keen to play to the gallery and Sel clearly drunk. Worst panel i can remember. Awful, awful stuff.
How can you support all unions? Don't be ridiculous.
I don't despise all unions because that would be unfair. Some do a worthy job. The NUT, however, have become so mental that they're losing teachers by the day and Gove can say in public that he doesn't give a toss what they think because they don't represent anyone.
Was Self drunk? I was wondering that. The woman was just embarrassing. I cringed with how patronising she was. Gove telling Self to shut up was the highlight of the night. Or maybe Self saying that terrorism was just a figment of our imaginations. One or the other.Well what unions do you support then to flip the question?
You are clearly abhorred at the fact i approve of democratic representation in all places of employment and every worker a representative.
Awful stuff i know, wanting people to have rights and not be expolited. But there we are. Those evil union bastards.
All in favour of the FBU and BALPA, both used and run for their members in a generally apolitical manner, as a good union should be. Not just focused on socialism and Tory-bashing.
I'm all in favour of people having rights, but you have to ask yourself whether an organisation like the NUT is really aimed at giving them to their members. It just seems to me to be a constant crusade for left-wing policies by budding politicians, much like university unions.
Not focused on Tory bashing or socialism.
What fecking planet are you on. You mean the two things that interest you most. God forbid that a socialist organidation should persue socialist means. And imagine having the cheek to attack the Tories, the party trying to destroy them for 30 years and now trying to pass a law that would effectively gag dissent.
Say Ally old chap,you strike me as a liberal chap going by our conversing. Surely you object to trade union s - you profess to support some - and charities being gagged by a draconian and Orwellian gagging law. Even Douglas Carswell calls it immoral and undemocratic.
Where do you stand, dear Al?
What fecking planet are you on. You mean the two things that interest you most. God forbid that a socialist organidation should persue socialist means. And imagine having the cheek to attack the Tories, the party trying to destroy them for 30 years and now trying to pass a law that would effectively gag dissent.
Say Ally old chap,you strike me as a liberal chap going by our conversing. Surely you object to trade union s - you profess to support some - and charities being gagged by a draconian and Orwellian gagging law. Even Douglas Carswell calls it immoral and undemocratic.
Where do you stand, dear Al?
I only watched the last 10 minutes, and this comment I couldn't believe. Self is so desperate to appear different and cleverer than everyone else that he talks complete bollocks.
The issue for me is that the role of unions has fundamentally changed, and some don't want to move with the times.
The original purpose was to encourage good working conditions, stick up for over-worked and underpaid workers, and to generally ensure the health and safety of the employees within the organisation, creating a link between the top and the bottom.
Some unions still follow this idea, but others have now become so far removed from the people that they are supposed to be representing that it is difficult to take them seriously. I know this might shock you, but not all people who work in the public sector are Labour voters, and all those that aren't don't have any representation in their unions. Why? Because they are politically motivated socialist organisations, and they don't care about their workers that don't conform to their ideals.
I support any union that fights for the rights of its members sensibly and equally. The sad reason why the Conservatives may well be trying to diminish their power is because they have far too big a say in comparison to the amount of members they have who actually believe in what they're saying. Take the NUT as an example: whenever Gove announces a plan, the NUT oppose all over the media. If you look at how many people the NUT actually represent, it's probably less than 10% of all teachers in this country.
And I'm off to Wales now so I will comment further and more tediously upon my return.
Since the closed shop was abolished, no one has to join a Trade Union, which begs the question, why do these people choose to join and pay for union membership if they are not represented by them at all? Union members whatever their political allegiance have the same voting rights within a union. It seems clear to me that people want the extra protection of being in a collective for purposes of bargaining over pay and conditions, whether they vote labour or not. They also have their interests served by the political activities of their union in highlighting and campaigning on issues which affect their areas of employment. They might not like it when another union in another area does likewise but that says more about how self interested conservatives are. What kind of hypocrite joins a union to campaign for them but then refutes the practice when others do likewise? Have you ever been in a union Al?
The anti union stance of the conservatives is just mental. And i mean MENTAL. Theres are almost 7million registered trade union members in the UK. A sizeable chunk of the voting percentage. The Tories get in, an organisation that lost half its membership - down to 134k - under Cameron's tenure, and demonise these people, deliberately picking fights. Not only is this stupid since 66% of the electorate deem unions essential and a force for good according to a recent poll, but something like less than twobpercent views unions as affecting their voting intentions. Furthermore, with this election set to be set around a cost of living agenda, vested interests are going to be majorly highlighted by Labour. They will welcome this. Michael Spencer, Libor frauder and major Tory donor, or organisations whose members contribute 6p a week. Short sighted ideologue idiots.
Not as mental as the anti-union stance of the labour party.
Do you not think this is a bluff, Pete?
I dont think anyone here can question your nous when it comes to Labour and the left.
A public drip-fed for decades on stories like 'Unionists are all Marxist layabouts' is, regrettably, wary of unions and their leaders. Very sad, but it's small wonder that Labour wants to (disgracefully) distance itself from the perception that they're under the unions' collective thumb; else they won't get elected (or so they believe).
I think the latest episode was a monumental cock up by Dead Ed. Labour should have also repealed anti-union legislation under Blair/Brown - instead they cosied up to finance with that 'light-touch' bollox and fecked the lot of us.
You're right as far as press stories go, but where the press have live ammunition that needs to be addressed. Consider the effect of a possible NUT strike. Whilst teachers might lose a day's pay (inconvenient, but it won't mean an empty fridge) many parents on minimum wage who are desperately trying to make ends meet will have to take a day off work, without pay, and really will have an empty fridge. That's not just a cliche, it means kids won't have a decent meal that tea-time. Worse than that, if the mum or dad can't turn up for their zero hours contract (if they have any contract at all) their job will be given to someone else. I know when I've posted this in the past people have said 'well it's up to the others to organise too then'. Bollocks, I would oppose an NUT strike for left-wing reasons - I support the poor and needy, and teaching unions who throw children back out on the streets would be doing more harm to them than the Tories. Trade unions harming private employers is fair enough, if they can't come to agreement both will suffer, but trade unions harming the poorest in society is just plain wrong, and I consider that a valid left-wing view, like it or lump it.
The point is missed there though; the problem lies with a) Parents who treat school as a child-minding service and, more importantly b) Employers that pay minimum-wage only & insist on zero-hour contracts. Unions aren't responsible for any of this yet will get the blame anyway...because people are quite willing to be brain-washed by the press.
You're blaming parents for daring to depend on schools being open in term-time, and for being so desperate to get through life they have to work in the jobs that are available to them?
There are lots of things the unions could do without striking; that is organising, persuading, and using democracy as it is supposed to be used.
Talking about relatively well-paid unionists hammering the poor isn't missing the point at all Steve, it is the point.
You win, chief; partly because I'm knackered & am going to bed.
peop
Bollox, no one gives a flying feck unless you can strike and hit where it hurts. And it's democratic to strike if the members vote for it.
Hurts who? Well-off and organised parents will make arrangements with their empolyers or family/neighbour networks, that's if their kids aren't safe in private school anway. If you're happy for strikes to hit the poorest in society then don't complain about bad press, don't wonder why the Labour party distances itself from the unions, and don't call yourself a socialist.
I'm not criticising trade unions as being undemocratic (I vote in mine), I'm pointing to the democracy that is parliament.
It wasn't strikes that brought in the minimum wage or tax credits, it was parliament.
There wouldn't ever have been a minimum wage in the first place without a Labour party supported by union money.
Which brings us full circle with Alastair's point about why unions get involved in politics because otherwise the agenda gets set against the weak by the strong? Parties become mere ins and outs and nothing important really changes.
The only hope for zero hour contract reform is a Labour victory at the next election and that means a labour election campaign fund provided by union members one way or another. What is the NUT striking about? Surely the only way to judge the action is its reason for being taken rather than an impact study on who that action harms. When the fire fighters go on strike it harms people with houses that catch fire, does that mean they can't ever go on strike or don't we care about people who's houses are burning?
Which brings us full circle with Alastair's point about why unions get involved in politics because otherwise the agenda gets set against the weak by the strong? Parties become mere ins and outs and nothing important really changes.
The only hope for zero hour contract reform is a Labour victory at the next election and that means a labour election campaign fund provided by union members one way or another. What is the NUT striking about? Surely the only way to judge the action is its reason for being taken rather than an impact study on who that action harms. When the fire fighters go on strike it harms people with houses that catch fire, does that mean they can't ever go on strike or don't we care about people who's houses are burning?
Yes I do care about people who's houses are burning, so I don't think firefighters are justified in striking, so your question is quite an easy one for me really.
I've no problem with striking against private owners or shareholders, it's up to the two sides to find agreement or they both lose out, but I do have a problem with public service workers whose strikes harm the public. In general I look to politicians and organisations to protect the weak and the needy, not harm them. Quixotic maybe, but it's the way I am.
As for the Labour party I agree with you, I support them.