Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

This was McDonell's explaination for his u turn on the Fiscal Charter.

The change came about after he visited a steelworks in northern England that is being shut down, McDonnell said.
“I met the steelworkers and I had families in tears about what’s happened to them as a result of the government failing to act,” he said. “It brought it home to me and I don’t want the Labour Party associated with this policy.”

Que????

!!!!!! has any of that got to do with Fiscal responsibility?

The global commodity market for steel has collapsed so you can't be committed to being Fiscally Responsible???

A Thai Company (Redcar) goes bust so you can't be Fiscally Responsible??

Generali

setmefree2 wrote: »

This was McDonell's explaination for his u turn on the Fiscal Charter.

Que????

!!!!!! has any of that got to do with Fiscal responsibility?

I think he's mixing up fiscal policy with the global oversupply of steel. It's the sort of thing that would confuse a stupid person.

setmefree2

Southend1 wrote: »

I think people are overlooking the fact that Corbyn did put forward some policy proposals as part of the leadership campaign but he always made it clear these were only proposals and that actual party policies would be decided democratically by the party, not dictated by the leader.

Mr Mann, a member of the House of Commons Treasury Committee, told BBC2's Daily Politics: "It's rather autocratic if John McDonnell announces one policy consulting nobody, and then within a few days the exact opposite - again consulting nobody.

"No consultation with the party, the shadow cabinet or the Parliamentary Labour Party - what kind of politics is it?"

Illford South Mp Mr Gapes wrote on Twitter: "There is now no collective shadow cabinet responsibility in our party, no clarity on economic policy and no credible leadership."

Thrugelmir

Southend1 wrote: »

You're concerned about a particular union rep. Your colleagues must have voted her in for a reason so perhaps they don't share your opinion, or maybe they are just waiting for some one like you who can represent them more effectively. Why not stand against her at the next election?

Union membership is now under 17% of the workforce. Fortunately the dinosaurs are gradually dying out. In essence they are stuck in a mindset of some decades ago.

Southend1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Union membership is now under 17% of the workforce. Fortunately the dinosaurs are gradually dying out. In essence they are stuck in a mindset of some decades ago.

Union membership fluctuates over time and has done for many years. From today's perspective, membership has fallen from very high levels but as you point out trade unionism is far from dead.

What we should remember is that hard won rights such as rest days, paid holidays, parental leave, equal pay, sick pay, safer workplaces etc were the result of working people coming together in unions and campaigning. These rights weren't just handed to us without a struggle, and we could easily find them under threat again. If the government didn't think unions are still able to channel the power of working people to stand up for their hard won rights they wouldn't be trying to push though the trade union bill, which is designed to make it easier for employers to cut pay and conditions.

Trade unionism is far from dead!

Mistermeaner

I meet with unions reps at work. Their opening gambit for 2016 onwards was to move to a 4 day week, with Friday being paid as overtime. This is from the already demanding 34hr week.

martinsurrey

Southend1 wrote: »

which is designed to make it easier for employers to cut pay and conditions.

Trade unionism is far from dead!

Actually, for the man in the street, its to stop a few vocal activists holding the country to ransom without the popular support of all the people going on strike...

Nothing will change, if 51% of a workforce want to strike, they can now, and they will be able to later.

Seems quite sensible to me.

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

Union membership fluctuates over time and has done for many years. From today's perspective, membership has fallen from very high levels but as you point out trade unionism is far from dead.

If by 'fluctuates' you mean 'has fallen pretty much year-on-year for over three decades' then you are right. If you mean the more traditional dictionary definition you are wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/trade-union-statistics-2014

Membership in thousands since 1989:

1989 9,045
1990 8,931
1991 8,686
1992 7,897
1993 7,647
1994 7,405
1995 7,165
1996 7,042
1997 6,972
1998 6,945
1999 7,069
2000 7,175
2001 7,091
2002 7,038
2003 7,205
2004 7,101
2005 7,123
2006 7,123
2007 7,101
2008 7,019
2009 6,828
2010 6,657
2011 6,506
2012 6,556
2013 6,530
2014 6,501

So 5 years in the last 26 has trade union membership been higher than the previous year. Despite a massive increase in the labour force since 1989, union membership has fallen by 28% in absolute terms.

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I meet with unions reps at work. Their opening gambit for 2016 onwards was to move to a 4 day week, with Friday being paid as overtime. This is from the already demanding 34hr week.

Had they been drinking?

Mistermeaner

its a matter of public record

http://www.njceci.org.uk/publication/njc-communique-0115-review-naeci-2016-beyond-employers-response/wppa_open/