Who will win the UK election ?

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

No they weren't. The BMA, the Doctors' trade union, acted to slow the introduction of the NHS and it was the Liberals, not the unions, that brought in the National Insurance Act, the start of what we'd recognise as the start of the modern welfare state.

In reality, history shows the record of the trade union movement to be characterised at worst by appalling racism and often by an indefensible neglect of the issues of race and equal opportunity. Between the two world wars, there was an effective colour bar in British industry, supported openly by individual unions.

https://web.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CRER_RC/publications/pdfs/Policy%20Papers%20in%20Ethnic%20Relations/PolicyP%20No.5.pdf

That was ten seconds of Googling. I can some more if anyone's interested.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Again highly selective, the BMA at the time was hardly a trades union. ...

The BMA is indeed a trade union. What makes you think it wasn't the doctor's trade union in 1946?

Moby

Generali wrote: »

Are you cepheus in disguise? Otherwise I didn't say you spouted anything.

The purpose of the unions is to improve the conditions of their members, not of all workers.

Child poverty, a relative measure of poverty, has fallen under the Tories. My personal belief is that by making the country richer you make the poorest richer as well and that's the most important thing. Who gives a damn if the richest few thousand earn a motza? As long as the poorest can still pay the bills it's okay.

As an example, the bottom 10% in the UK earn more than the average salary in China.

Ahhh yes the trickle down theory and you do know of course that there is no standardised way of measuring povery in the UK; so Cameron's claim to have reduced it by 300,000 was rubbish because it takes time for policies to have an effect and guess who was in power prior to him. probably

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

I didn't work down the mines myself but my older relatives did.

So when you said "direct personal experience", you didn't actually mean that you had any direct personal experience of the subject matter of your post.

I'm glad we've cleared that one up.:)

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Ahhh yes the trickle down theory and you do know of course that there is no standardised way of measuring povery in the UK; so Cameron's claim to have reduced it by 300,000 was rubbish because it takes time for policies to have an effect and guess who was in power prior to him. probably

Fascinating.

Although I would point out that the subject of this thread is 'Who will win the UK election' and not 'Who should win the UK election'.

Just sayin'.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

The BMA is indeed a trade union. What makes you think it wasn't the doctor's trade union in 1946?

It was a Trade Union/professional body representing it's members but I'm talking generally and it was hardly representative of Trades Unions and their objectives in history. What's interesting here is that you ignore the broad sweep of my argument. Any reason for that?

Although I would point out that the subject of this thread is 'Who will win the UK election' and not 'Who should win the UK election'.

Just sayin'.
Fair enough ..........I'll shut up now but I didn't start it!

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

In reality, history shows the record of the trade union movement to be characterised at worst by appalling racism and often by an indefensible neglect of the issues of race and equal opportunity. Between the two world wars, there was an effective colour bar in British industry, supported openly by individual unions.

https://web.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CRER_RC/publications/pdfs/Policy%20Papers%20in%20Ethnic%20Relations/PolicyP%20No.5.pdf

That was ten seconds of Googling. I can some more if anyone's interested.

This was still going on in the 1990s of course.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/black-workers-to-challenge-fords-wall-of-racism-1339444.html

This was the period that the colour bar put in place by trades unions was finally addressed.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

It was a Trade Union/professional body representing it's members but I'm talking generally and it was hardly representative of Trades Unions and their objectives in history. What's interesting here is that you ignore the broad sweep of my argument. Any reason for that?

Because it's not relevant to answering the question 'Who will win the UK election'.?

purch

antrobus wrote: »

That was ten seconds of Googling. I can some more if anyone's interested.

We're not, but that won't stop you

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Ahhh yes the trickle down theory and you do know of course that there is no standardised way of measuring povery in the UK; so Cameron's claim to have reduced it by 300,000 was rubbish because it takes time for policies to have an effect and guess who was in power prior to him. probably

No, not trickle down theory. There is no theory here.

Empirically we have evidence that richer countries have richer poor people often even than the average income of moderate income countries. That's not a theory.