It's not the organisation, it's the fleeting membership. You know half of 'em will be lawyers and bankers in a few years and are holidaying in the working class. By any chance are your friends who were helped by the union, now big union men themselves?
One has a very, very 'odd' relationship her union the BMA the other was a convener/rep for the MSF but became very disenheartened with it (feeling its distinctive voice had been lost) when it subsumed into, what became, Unite. As an aside I was disgusted to discover when I first became a PDRA that neither unite and UCU were interested in our, frankly awful working conditions & contracts.
I wouldnt use that picture, I believe that sitcom was used as a way to make people with real concerns look foolish just like people concerned with real conspiracies concerning the elite are bunched together with people talking about Jewish space lasers etc. I imagine at the time this sitcom was running people with any left wing or socialist thoughts were deemed to be like Wolfie and his cohorts and thus not taken seriously and made out to be a joke. I would put it in the same bracket as the "Karen" thing, anyone making legitimate complaints is now branded a "Karen" and thrown in the same group as people complaining just for the sake of it.
Yep. Absolutely. That sitcom ran for not a very long time and it wasn't even popular because it was quite unfunny. Of course it was also meant to portray left wing politics as futile and wrong. Believed in only by zany half-lunatics who are laughed at by the 'normal' people. The comedy, such as it was, was to expose the socialist beliefs as shallow, often abandoned in self interest or greed, hypocritical and out of step with the modern world. In the following decades, long after the programme was abandoned as being desperate crud and not recommissioned, it has served as a very strong reference point and clear proof for Daily Mail readers that all left wing people are just like that.
I remember it fondly. I think there is always satire to be had about the earnest and committed and I say that as someone who is earnest and committed. Everyone who is ‘right on’ has some kind of failing. That’s just people. I don’t remember Citizen Smith satirising wacky conspiracies and pre-social media they didn’t have the same prominence. I would expect it’s dated badly in other ways, old-fashioned about women and probably a bit dodgy on race in places. It certainly wasn’t pro-left, but you felt warm towards Wolfie and his hapless sidekicks and the image of excitable urban revolutionary is still a bit of fun. It’s a bit like the Strawbs ‘Part of the Union’. That’s a great song and I love it, even though I know it’s part homage to, part satire of, the Unions. Got to be able to laugh at ourselves. Makes us stronger.
There's plenty that is comical on the left for sure. I have seen nothing else. The ridiculous divisions and splinters, the lengths of the right-on-ness some go to and condemn others as less holy if they ate a McDonald's or something. The amendment to the composite motions. The turncoats and the holidaying in poor-land militant students, the undercover infiltrators, the ineffectiveness and futility of a lot of protest. There was plenty they could have satirised and done a lot better job. If you saw it at the time, you'd have to admit it was not exactly a laugh out loud masterpiece. More likely the reason they haven't shown it again too. That Robert Lindsay actor wasn't all that good either. I think afterwards he never really did anything of note. Only mediocre rom com series rubbish.
Ironically Robert Lindsay is quite a "leftie" in real life. Probably labelled a champagne socialist these days but I believe he is actually from a mining background. I agree he's not a particularly talented actor though. I wonder if he sees Citizen Smith as damaging to the left and regrets doing it now?
I’ve got to say I haven’t seen Citizen Smith since I was about 13 and used to shout ‘Freedom for Tooting’ at break time. I enjoyed Robert Lindsay in the Bleasdale dramas ‘GBH’ and ‘Jake’s Progress’. In GBH, iirc, he was satirising the left again as a Derek Hattonesque militant leader.
I doubt it was damaging to the left. Wolfie is a well-loved character and the jokes fell on his conservative father-in-law. In any case, hardly anyone remembers it because it wasn’t that good. Wolfie was working class at least. Worth something considering the hollowing out that followed under New Labour. Citizen Smith was, of course, an early John Sullivan series before Only Fools and Horses, which is again warmly intentioned satire.
My basic argument was based upon the ethical/philosophical belief that everyone should deserve a living wage (as long as they are willing to contribute to society if they are practicably able so to do; so no skivers will earn as much as you, HH). How much in quantified terms does not change that aspect, although obviously it has a direct relevance to its practical application, and I realise this is a major element in your view on the subject, and I understand that. At current levels, I would doubt that for a family of four the following items would cost less than £21k p.a.: rent, council tax, energy (even at 2021 levels), broadband/phones/TV licence (all effective necessities in a situation where even claiming benefits requires internet access), food, general groceries such as soap & cleaning products, clothes, insurance etc. And that assumes the possibility of walking to work, which is rarely feasible for most; for many even your laudable cycle journey would be impractical. In that context, £21k TAKE HOME is what would be required for the most frugal acceptable standard of living; no spare cash for school trips or sports clubs etc to develop the next generation to all our benefit. Even if we accept the April 2023 increase to £10.41 per hour, on an average 38-hour week, that equates to £20,570 gross, which equates to £18k max take home, even if they have to make no additional pension payments. So 0ver 14% below a truly basic standard of living. Are you comfortable with that? I have said more than once that this situation cannot be addressed without real fundamental 'root and branch' adjustment of the entire 'system' that currently exists. That will include a total re-assessment of the real value generated by all participants: 'workers', 'bosses', 'owners', 'shareholders' etc. It would be painful and very difficult, and the power rests to such an extent with the current 'haves' and those that support them through fear or lack of perception, that I doubt it could happen peacefully. I have a real concern that the current divide will increase rather than decrease and THAT (rather than any effete politics of the EU) may be seriously threatening to our democracy. This country (and many others) is awash with money; it's just ring-fenced to the benefit of the few, and I do not believe you don't realise that. The funds exist to effect a real change in the relative distribution of wealth, it's just the will that is lacking. I doubt it will suddenly be found. But the fact of such practical unlikelihood will not stop me from proclaiming its desireability. I honestly thought you might agree on that score. 'Ensuring no person starves & that they not be refused health care' is simply not enough. Notwithstanding that BOTH situations exist today in the UK, how about homelessness, freezing to illness or near to death in their own home, being unable to access reasonable sanitation, wearing shoes with holes in etc etc. Do people not have such rights? And as for the 'human rights act'....I assume you are referring the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which includes the following: 'the right to just & favourable remuneration ensuring for themselves & family an existence of human dignity'. This was ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1966 & enshrined in International Law in 1976. And I think I'll skip the lecture on economic theory from someone whose major hope seems to be 'scarcity of labour', that time-served inhibitor of economic growth and development.
TBH, I was innocently trying to find a reason for your leap from my support of a view of the 'right to a living wage' to your rant about me suggesting people who 'don't work as hard as you' deserved the same pay....ending up with a cry of 'F.....it.' We've all had days like that after which our responses are somewhat extreme; I wondered if your bizarre comments were because of that. Have you noticed at least one of your new correspondents has dumped you?
Ha! Totally unintentional irony on your side, asking that from a poster whose 'tour de force' has been the statement: 'Definition of the term has nothing to do with the use I made of it'.
In my view there is a place for both home ownership and rental & there should be no stigma attached to either. Other countries seem to manage a reasonably balanced situation where reasonable & affordable rents charged on a large 'rental estate' exists alongside an 'owned estate' where purchase prices are more aligned to what people can afford. I think the history of the housing sector since Thatcher's 'right to buy' initiative suggests that 'reasonable rents' are only feasible when a significant % of the properties are authority-owned, backed up with real funds to maintain adequately.
Interesting definition of 'unearned'; surely the premise was people paid into the pot from their 'earned income' so they could draw out from it in later life. A bit like a savings account. That's not to disagree that the system only works if contributions into it continue to rollover, nor that some aspects of the current regulations surrounding tax relief on private pensions may be over generous.
How about the impact of successive years of below inflation pay increases? Was that acceptable practice by employers?
"Skivers" can earn as much as they like. I don't give a damn. Where did I say I did, or even use YOUR word, "skivers"? If that is how you see people, it is no surprise that you resort so quickly to insults and put downs. What an unpleasant person you paint yourself to be. I'm just saying it should not be a fundamental human right. You really must not read things into my posts that I do not say, because you make yourself out to be a liar every time you do. I have no interest in how much more people are earning than I am, because I am not a material person. As long as I feel I am earning an appropriate amount, I have no problem with what others manage to get for themselves. I feel that people would do well to follow that attitude, and would support my peers if they felt they were being hard done by. Word salad. Delicious. A couple of slices of meaning or some definition of the point you were trying to make would be helpful though.
Well, the government did take appropriate action to remove their bias. If it has swung the other way as part of that correction, how can you possibly complain? You had a good few years in your favour.
Deluded. Totally deluded. You say the lowest essential income for a four person family would be £21k, and then, like a child, declare THAT to be what you consider to be the appropriate living wage. How absurd. So, if all four were adult earners, you would have the government subsidise them to earnings of £84K, despite having identified that around £63K of that would be for luxuries and non-essentials. You may regret saying it, but please don't tell me that is not what you are implying in your diatribe. We have been talking about wages, not family income, or the income of house shares. I think, according to your data, that a family of four with two earners, even if one of them was on only 10 hours a week, at minimum wage would be comfortable enough; given the scenarios you describe. I'd say that if they were living in some parts of the country, they would be extremely comfortable, even if only one person was full time. If they were fully employed, then even more so. So, are you going to suggest now that you meant household income all along? And say that I have put words in your mouth, despite you clearly having said the words I have been arguing with for days now. You have already denied that FOM meant all comers (all comers has never meant everyone, and has always referred to all who wish to come) and you have already gone from a living wage as a fundamental right to something that only people who work hard should get. How far will you swing to the right before you accept that, possibly, the suggestion you made of government subsidising a living wage in conjunction with a return to FOM, as the cure to current wage problems, may have been a little naive? And you think that scarecety of Labour has no part to play in the negotiation of better wages and conditions (that is the suggestion I made that you came down on with all your fantastic ideas). Infact, you believe that opening the borders to free movement, with workers coming here from abroad creating a scarcety of jobs, will be beneficial to workers improving their lot with employers, provided the government subsidise low wages. FOM has no throttle. That is why we ditched it. Yet you think that guaranteeing a living wage, through government subsidy (what money? who is it going to come from) to anyone who chooses to come here to do low paid jobs (low paid in any other country, but not the UK) is going to solve the wages crises? You will drag everyone down to the lowest levels. And then whinge that they didn't do it how you meant they should. Thankfully, everyone will be skipping the lectures you are offerring, from someone who thinks an abundance of cheap labour is a driver to improved pay and conditions, on auto-destructive employment economics. And, if you read it properly, article 23 makes no mention of a right to a living wage. All it does is point out that IF a person chooses to work, they may expect a wage acceptable to them - it says nothing about the employer having to employ the person though. It is literally pointing out that it is your right to refuse to work, and to leverage demand for your labour and skills, to negotiate payment you deem is acceptable. It is patently not saying that you must be paid a living wage, or that an employer must employ you. Or is that really what you think it IS saying?
Again. The difference is between it being a fundamental human right, which was the question you asked me (and I still say F it), and a matter of a person getting paid what they can get (the right of any person offering their labour, under article 23, and I would never deny it), to which I say best of luck, even if they don't intend to do a jot of work. Do not mistake my intransigence towards the stupidity you suggested with your blinkered view of people's motivations or their instrinsic rights; I embrace the idea, and a persons right, to get away with whatever they can legally get away with. That is the difference between us. You literally have no nuance. Literally. Your unconvincing virtue signalling, suggesting that my callous disregard for Since63's bill of Silly Human Rights painted me a cruel person, has since been turned on its head by your decision to refer to some people as skivers. This came from you only, and is not even an inference I made. I would never have used such a derogatory term, nor would I suggest anyone who chooses not to work be placed in a job they do not want to do, yet you know them far better than I, apparently. Or was it just your attempt to put the word in my mouth? Too bad. That can only be accounted to you and your imagination.
" Royal Mail strikes leaves kinky sex-starved Brits dildo-less at Christmas The Royal Mail postal strikes are hitting Brits hard in a way you might not expect. Horny shoppers have been left without their kinky Christmas presents, after several strikes over the next week take place, on top of ones already completed." https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/royal-mail-strikes-leaves-kinky-28731089 Those union Baron grinches! Will they stop at nothing? No wonder public support for these cruel barons is falling whilst support for the government's hard line and the real and actual barons and barronesses, counts and countesses, princes and princesses, lords and ladies is soaring! (we would like you to believe). And in these difficult economic times (caused by Putin and his illegal war!), the British people can save money they would have spent on sex toys on account of getting a regular screwing off the Tories. And I think THAT, Laura, sound economic policy, is what the British people actually want. (smug smile, sit back in chair, clasp hands in pinstripe lap).
Filbert, 31 from Leicestershire told us: ‘I’m gutted to be honest, moneys tight this Christmas and my purchase of a bottle of cranberry flavoured lube and a turkey leg shaped butt plug would’ve really lifted the mood with Mrs Filbert…’
Times were ‘ard when I was a nipper. Posties were gor’on strike and father had to use roughly fashioned lump o’ coal as butt plug. We didn’t have much, but we was ‘appy.
If it was written in their contract, yes. If not, no. Maybe my mindset is tainted by working in the public sector, but if I am offered a job for doing a wage at £45k, I don't feel I have any right to demand a 2/3% increase every year, especially as I get very favourable pension benefits, great work life balance and I'm not working for minimum wage. If I feel like another job will give me a better quality of living, I will take it. And if the employer feels they need to raise salaries to fill job vacancies (as they definitely should do in the NHS) they should offer a higher salary. But it is certainly acceptable (and, as history shows, favourable) to decide on pay based on supply and demand, above a minimum amount of income set by the state that allows people to not be destitute. The US healthcare is a mess and pays a stupid amount for medication because of ridiculous incentives, but their nurses are paid $100k+, because the market knows what they are actually worth far more than the state. That's all well and good if you ignore inflation and unemployment. Pushing up the entire country's salary in such an arbitrary way would likely exacerbate inflation, wiping out lots of the gains you have asked businesses to fund, requiring further minimum wage increases etc. It would also mean businesses sack employees and/ or collapse, in response to greater losses/ to remain profitable. But those at the top/ large businesses would probably eventually benefit. They'd remove more minimum wage earners as they'd be incentivised to invest more in technology. For jobs which can't be done by machines, more jobs would move abroad. All in all, you'd likely reduce tax intake from corporation tax, NI and increasing unemployment allowances, damaging public services and minimum wage earners, which is why very few have tried. The fairest thing to do in this environment is support the most vulnerable, with things that will help them both short term and long term. Immediate support on energy, mortgage relief and house insulation. Past this winter, there are significant energy, housing and transport decisions which need to be made. I'm not sure if Sunak is willing to give up being popular, but if he gets quick cross party consensus on a number of these issues he could, like Major, get a lot done in his final two years.
If your employer doesn't offer you an increase that keeps up with inflation, I suggest finding a different employer, because below inflation raises mean they're effectively paying you less for every successive year of experience than the one before it. There are too many other open positions around to accept that kind of nonsense. Keeping up with inflation for a productive worker in good standing is the bare minimum any of us should find acceptable. They are not paid $100k here. Some positions with a nurse prefix that deal with extremely complex/high skill/important areas (e.g. anesthetic) are paid at a higher level, but these are comparatively rare, and most nurses earn nowhere near that kind of wage. California is probably the only standout in that regard, and that's a reflection of the extraordinarily high cost of living in the metro areas of that state. If you look at the US midwest, nurse wages are more in the 30k - 70k range.
