Corbynomics: A Dystopia

mwpt

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Which is also the problem with the PLP. Like most mainstream politicians, they are only used to representing baby boomers. Their politics doeesn't work for younger people and they are unable to respond to the change in demand, which is why they / you are so upset by Corbyn.

I have no affiliation to any UK political party. I have never voted Labour nor Conservative. I only say this so perhaps you will consider my opinion:

Corbyn does come across, at least the my naive eyes, as an actual somewhat honest politician (they are all liars at some level). The problem is that he is also an ineffectual politician. He is not electable. You will never change anything that you want to change with Corbyn at the helm.

Surely you have learned by now that life is not black and white and that we always have to compromise for issues on practicality? Would it not be better to compromise on your hard left principles, moderating them somewhat so that you and your chosen representatives can actually get something done? How can you still support a man who did virtually nothing to help your cause in opposing brexit?

martinsurrey

mwpt wrote: »

How can you still support a man who did virtually nothing to help your cause in opposing brexit?

because Rugged believes that he did everything he could.

you see, JC can do no wrong, and if you suggest otherwise, you're an immigrant hating toff, or the PLP, or both

Thrugelmir

ruggedtoast wrote: »

That's interesting because secure employment has been in progressive decline for decades, I wonder what the connection is.

What's secure employment? Jobs for life. Not something I ever experienced in my working lifetime. Technology has changed the way we all work.

The emergence of China and India along with the fall of the Berlin Wall started the irrevocable change of the nature of the labour market. Along with a growing consumer society where more often or not. Both partners in a household want to work whether it full or part time.

Rinoa

ruggedtoast wrote: »

That's interesting because secure employment has been in progressive decline for decades, I wonder what the connection is.

Regardless of your own experiences in the ASTMS in the 80s, for many people joining the labour market now, union membership is their best and only chance at representation to their employers.

Their rights aren't going to be represented by the government, because their employers are paying off the government to ensure they have as few rights as possible.

Again though, this just appears to be another case of the baby boomers who have benefited enormously from unionised jobs and protected employment during their own careers, who now cry bureaucracy and inefficiency when the younger versions of them ask for the same thing, when entering the job market now.

Which is also the problem with the PLP. Like most mainstream politicians, they are only used to representing baby boomers. Their politics doeesn't work for younger people and they are unable to respond to the change in demand, which is why they / you are so upset by Corbyn.

I'm old enough to remember when unions had all the power.


Coffins stored in a Liverpool warehouse, waiting for the gravediggers to end their strike so funerals can take place.



Sacks of mail pile up at Kings Cross waiting for postmen to end their strike.



Rotting garbage piles up in the street as bin men go on strike.



Hospitals working without electricity during 3 day week.


And Rugged thinks empowering the unions again is the way forward.

westernpromise

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's secure employment? Jobs for life. Not something I ever experienced in my working lifetime. Technology has changed the way we all work.

The emergence of China and India along with the fall of the Berlin Wall started the irrevocable change of the nature of the labour market. Along with a growing consumer society where more often or not. Both partners in a household want to work whether it full or part time.

The tradeoff for less job security is the prospect of windfall redundancy payments and that it is easier to get a job if you are easier to dislodge. On balance I like it; I've had three redundo windfalls and they've all been very timely.

westernpromise

Rinoa wrote: »

And Rugged thinks empowering the unions again is the way forward.

It's like a blast of stale air.

Grunwick strike: http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/476fcdac750346ab9ea6b0d04e16b07c/grunwick-strike-north-london-uk-striker-being-arrested-homer-sykes-bhg7af.jpg

Innocent Scargillite miners being provoked by soldiers dressed as the police:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/14/article-2309062-0001B8F600000C1D-873_634x467.jpg

What happens to a taxi driver who drives miners to work through an illegal picket line:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38652000/jpg/_38652747_wilkie_car_238.jpg

Trade union donor Libya expresses its democratic view of PC Yvonne Fletcher:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01874/libya2_1874257b.jpg

Trade union "democracy", Leyland style:
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/560/media/images/81927000/jpg/_81927215_british_leyland_strike_624.jpg

Yep, those were the days.

Thrugelmir

westernpromise wrote: »

The tradeoff for less job security is the prospect of windfall redundancy payments and that it is easier to get a job if you are easier to dislodge. On balance I like it; I've had three redundo windfalls and they've all been very timely.

Did you sit down and work out why your employers were offering such generous redundancy terms to encourage people to jump ship? Nothing better than jam today as they say.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

That's interesting because secure employment has been in progressive decline for decades, I wonder what the connection is.

Regardless of your own experiences in the ASTMS in the 80s, for many people joining the labour market now, union membership is their best and only chance at representation to their employers.

Their rights aren't going to be represented by the government, because their employers are paying off the government to ensure they have as few rights as possible.

Again though, this just appears to be another case of the baby boomers who have benefited enormously from unionised jobs and protected employment during their own careers, who now cry bureaucracy and inefficiency when the younger versions of them ask for the same thing, when entering the job market now.

Which is also the problem with the PLP. Like most mainstream politicians, they are only used to representing baby boomers. Their politics doeesn't work for younger people and they are unable to respond to the change in demand, which is why they / you are so upset by Corbyn.

do you think Corbyn and the clique at the top of the Labour party, should publicly apologise for giving support to the IRA killers?

[Deleted User]

Rinoa wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember when unions had all the power.

And Rugged thinks empowering the unions again is the way forward.

(Gonna edit the photo size down a bit please?)

Me too. I can remember sitting in candlelight waiting for the power to come back on during the electricity strikes so that I could do homework. I think that the telly companies had to stop broadcasting earlier as well?

I was in a union for 30+ years and even I think if we go back to the bad old days the country is knackered (or even more knackered, depending on your viewpoint :cool: ).

I've yet to come across a sound reason why unions seem to regard themselves as so important in relation to issues away from the workplace. Why is it that when folk certainly no wiser than me become shop stewards and rise up the union ladder, they suddenly discover themselves to have hidden "expertise", now seemingly able to blossom, on a range of issues and feel empowered to advise governments on issues like economics and foreign relations?

I'd happily ask a plumber for advice about plumbing; if that plumber became a shop stewards in UNITE, and rose up the ladder to high office in his union, I'd still be reasonably happy to ask him about plumbing issues, as long as he still had ongoing direct experience "in the field"; why would anyone ask him about his views on Syria or macroeconomic policy as well? You'd be as well asking "the bloke down the pub" as far as I'm concerned.

In one of my former workplaces, a really popular bloke stood for election as a union rep on a "platform" of opposing cuts to terms and conditions of employment. Once appointed, until the next elections he did sweet fa about these issues and instead banged on about opposition to abortion. He seemed to think that he was now authorised by the "people" to speak up. He was a librarian. His attitude to the mainly female staff group was that he knew better than them about the subject. Needless to say he was kicked out on his botty a year later.

Give an a-rse power, you don't get a statesman; you just get a more powerful a-rse .

WR

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

That's interesting because secure employment has been in progressive decline for decades, I wonder what the connection is.

Regardless of your own experiences in the ASTMS in the 80s, for many people joining the labour market now, union membership is their best and only chance at representation to their employers.

Their rights aren't going to be represented by the government, because their employers are paying off the government to ensure they have as few rights as possible.

Again though, this just appears to be another case of the baby boomers who have benefited enormously from unionised jobs and protected employment during their own careers, who now cry bureaucracy and inefficiency when the younger versions of them ask for the same thing, when entering the job market now.

Which is also the problem with the PLP. Like most mainstream politicians, they are only used to representing baby boomers. Their politics doeesn't work for younger people and they are unable to respond to the change in demand, which is why they / you are so upset by Corbyn.

You must try to stop blaming everything on boomers. I am not anti Union like the he majority of posters on here seem to be, having been in union all my working life I can see the benefits of membership.

Aren't a lot of the unions run by boomers.