May 1st strike at those causing the global crisis

Devon_Sailor

Moby wrote: »

That's it repeat every right wing cliche towards anyone who doesn't accept the status quo! By the way I remember some awful behaviour towards the police by the scum bags on the countryside alliance demonstration. You see it all depends on where you come from and what you want for the future!

My goodness you are in a properly argumentative mood this weekend Moby - and not quite sure where I have listed any sort of "right wing cliche!"? I stand by everything I posted.

1) Differing from the status quo is fine. Bedrock of democracy and all that. Believing in random global conspiracy theories? Again...grow up :cool:

2) When promoting something, it helps if you spell it correctly....

3) As we witnessed during the Student Fees protests and many other events over the years, a chunk is often made up of rebellious middle-class youths looking for some excitement.

I don't condone violence towards the police in any circumstances. Anyone who choses to forgo their right to peaceful and democratic protest, and instead hurl projectiles or attack coppers, is a scumbag. I don't condone the Countryside Alliance members who acted that way any more than Anti Capitalist ones. They are all scumbags. This thread though was about the May Day ones; I didn't realise we had to provide contrasting "right" examples every time one discussed the "left"?

Of course anyone who goes out dressed like this is entirely innocent and not looking for trouble at all, are they....??



I'm very egalitarian really. A scumbag, is a scumbag, is a scumbag.

Regards,

D_S

Moby

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

My goodness you are in a properly argumentative mood this weekend Moby - and not quite sure where I have listed any sort of "right wing cliche!"? I stand by everything I posted.

1) Differing from the status quo is fine. Bedrock of democracy and all that. Believing in random global conspiracy theories? Again...grow up :cool:

2) When promoting something, it helps if you spell it correctly....

3) As we witnessed during the Student Fees protests and many other events over the years, a chunk is often made up of rebellious middle-class youths looking for some excitement.

I don't condone violence towards the police in any circumstances. Anyone who choses to forgo their right to peaceful and democratic protest, and instead hurl projectiles or attack coppers, is a scumbag. I don't condone the Countryside Alliance members who acted that way any more than Anti Capitalist ones. They are all scumbags. This thread though was about the May Day ones; I didn't realise we had to provide contrasting "right" examples every time one discussed the "left"?

Of course anyone who goes out dressed like this is entirely innocent and not looking for trouble at all, are they....??



I'm very egalitarian really. A scumbag, is a scumbag, is a scumbag.

Regards,

D_S

DS How is it possible for a tory to be egalitarian?...that's a hell of a stretch mate?

May Day... as you know is a traditional day of protest for the left. It should not be characterised only by the extremists on the fringes because that detracts from those of us who are non violent. I sometimes go on these demonstrations and the reality is far different from the way its presented in the right wing gutter press. For the purposes of their own agenda they concentrate on the fringes, (like your photo). It is a cliche IMO.
As for random global conspiracy theories...again it depends where you stand. It does seem to me that the power in this world, at this time, lies with a mainly white, western elite who hold the levers of economic power. We've just had wall to wall of the Boston terrorism....while the fact that over 50 odd people died the very same day in Iraq received no such coverage....that's not a conspiracy....that's self interested media coverage IMO...... that puts more value on western lives. Every so often we get shafts of light eg...... On a purely British level... Leveson exposed the corrupt networking between the gutter press and elements in the police. I see the Mail and Sun today led with stories about how two of the Barristers representing Hacked Off were...get this....'having a relationship'! Also.... The threats made to Prescott and Tom Watson were real...not conspiracy. Look out for further such despicable behaviour by the right wing gutter press against anyone threatening the establishment in the next couple of years. To say it doesn't exist is naive at best or evidence of a personal agenda at worst.

Devon_Sailor

Moby,

I agree that the "sexy" media focus is always going to be directed at the mindless thuggery of the fringes; however the fact is that they have become a regular, indeed near permanent fixture and as you say drown out the message of the peaceful majority.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that they do more damage to the cause of those holding peaceful protests than their own uber-extreme agenda, simply because they drown your message almost in its entirety.

As I have said before, the media is unacceptably lazy. Why bother covering worthy yet oft neglected cases, when it can get the easy photo op of some youth shoving a bin through a Starbucks window? Boston was a good case in point as you say. The media were also extremely mute in pointing out the extreme, yet tragic irony that the bombing took place in a city that in the 80s and 90s had such welcoming and deep pockets for IRA fundraisers as the sought to finance their campaign of killing and maiming against the British citizenry. But that is another thread altogether...!!

D_S

BobQ

sjaypink wrote: »

So you've just got a few old timers left, who, as you correctly state, can afford to strike.
The younger/newer additions are not interested as we are certainly not going to lose a day's pay to fight for a colleague's pension which is worth a damn site more than ours (pull the ladder up Jack ).
Union support - or strike support rather - is weak.

This is a fairy tale. The reason many younger people do not strike is that they are not in a union.

Many younger people see the decision to join a union as largely based on what they personally get out of it, much the same as gym membership. Of course this thinking means that when they have a problem its too late. How often do you see posts on forums like these from people who have an employment issue and want to know what they can do?

The argument that younger people have less interest in pensions is absurd. Those who have accrued long term public sector pensions largely know that they have relatively little to gain by striking over such changes unless they have more promotions in them. Their careers have largely peaked and most of their pensions are already accrued. Younger people have a lot more to gain by retaining as good a pension scheme as possible particularly if they have careers that are likely to continue in the public sector.

I was talking to a public sector worker last year, in his twenties. He told me that he was upset with the changes to his pension and had voted in favour of strike action to record his protest. He then confessed that he had not gone of strike. He was quite put out when I observed that it was an interesting tactic voting for others to go on strike for his benefit.

As ever people get the employment conditions they deserve. Glad I do not have to worry about these things any more!

sheffield_lad

I don't understand why PS workers don't work that out. Cut the union sub and it's an instant pay rise.

Why keep Len Mclusky on £120k+ when he cares not one jot for his workers.

Thrugelmir

howee wrote: »

Why keep Len Mclusky on £120k+ when he cares not one jot for his workers.

Add Arthur Scargill and Bob Crowe to that list.......

lostinrates

BobQ wrote: »

The argument that younger people have less interest in pensions is absurd.

I really don't think it is absurd. I don't think I count as 'younger' any more, but I know our peers and we put far less emphasis on pension planning than my parents and their peers in our respective social circles did. A lot of us have seen our parents be or at least feel 'screwed' by their own pension provision. More of us have had to invest more in our own education and indeed, have different (I am using different as I am not trying to re hash the same old generational war) spending profiles.

I know very few of our friends under forty who routinely salary sacrifice, for example, unless for tax avoidance purposes. The fear for the future is rising more in my social group, but pension provision beyond basic requirements of employers doesn't seem to be in our circle.

I am sure there is relevance to other factors, but I think that it's not true many of us just don't factor in pension planning as much as our parents did......and I am not defending that, just saying it how I see it.

sjaypink

BobQ wrote: »

This is a fairy tale. The reason many younger people do not strike is that they are not in a union.

Well, I was talking about me and my department. I am in the union, as are my colleagues.

BobQ wrote: »

The argument that younger people have less interest in pensions is absurd.

I didn't say we had no interest in pensions (although, it's not exactly a priority at the moment).
What I did say is that those who've joined in the last few years do not have the same pension scheme as employees who've been there for decades.
The recent strikes from our union have been about changes to final salary schemes. Why would we lose money to strike if we're not on a final salary scheme?

BobQ wrote: »

As ever people get the employment conditions they deserve.

Yep, well there are no proposed changes to my conditions, so no problem there

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

As ever people get the employment conditions they deserve. Glad I do not have to worry about these things any more!

No point in trying to eat more out of the trough if its empty.

The Union workers in the Crown post Offices are demanding pay rises of over 3% this year and next.

Sounds just like the 70's all over again.

BobQ

sjaypink wrote: »

Well, I was talking about me and my department. I am in the union, as are my colleagues.

I didn't say we had no interest in pensions (although, it's not exactly a priority at the moment).
What I did say is that those who've joined in the last few years do not have the same pension scheme as employees who've been there for decades.
The recent strikes from our union have been about changes to final salary schemes. Why would we lose money to strike if we're not on a final salary scheme?


Yep, well there are no proposed changes to my conditions, so no problem there

Fair enough. I am not convinced that you have nothing to gain by opposing the change just because you are not in a final salary scheme. All schemes are closing as I understand it? And the new scheme is in most cases less favourable than the schemes it replaces? Obviously if your scheme is the same as the one now replacing the FS scheme I can see why you might be lukewarm about the change. Equally if you think the changes are fair there is no point protesting.

Clearly your part of the public sector is better paid than I realise if you can accept years of pay freeze plus significant pension increases and say "are no proposed changes to my conditions, so no problem there".