British workers you plonker, Sunderland being in Britain, in case you need enlightening on that.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
Those other countries allow them to be fully private, often listed on stock exchanges, but with majority stakes owned by the government. The UK insisted on trying to run them too, and some (like BL and the coal mines) just needed to be allowed to fail.
You said "those very same workers", except that they were totally different workers who were not sullied by the likes of Red Robbo.
Ah right, I can see if you have the brain of a gnat you might take that literally. British workers, except with good management and better legislation on workers rights. The unions are still there. Stop dissing British workers Colin, you should support them instead.
Thomas Cook was nationalised before and did pretty well.
They wanted to save jobs. The German conservative government bailed out Condor. They just needed a bridging loan guarantee not a full bailout to secure next round of funding. It would have cost them less initially than the repatriation and who knows what aggressive restructuring could have done.
This thread is more unpleasant than the United Forum.
If this is the standard of discourse you can expect from caring socialist, I am right to want to have nothing to do with your lot.
If this is the standard of discourse you can expect from caring socialist, I am right to want to have nothing to do with your lot.
You keep coming back, so obviously not even you think you're right.
Any time a company fails there will be job losses, that's not a reason to save it. Failed companies need to be allowed to die, unless there's a really, really good reason to save them in the national interest, or if there's a liquidity crisis in the private sector crushing an otherwise strong company. Neither of those things applied to Thomas Cook.
Let's see whether the bailout of Condor proves a good decision in the long term, though that was the profitable bit of the group so has at least some chance.
Where does it end? The state bailing out Clintons Cards... because 'jobs'?
It’s not OUR choice. If you want better things you need a government to invest. Government gets its revenue is through taxation so more tax more money to invest less tax less money to invest. Its simplest way to understand it. £500 more in your pocket through tax cuts might not be much of a difference to you but in a workforce of 30 million that’s £15bn the government can invest into services for you.
Won't somebody think of the children?
I bet you put your finger down your bum crack and gave it a good long satisfying sniff just after posting this.
Why would anybody care for a Tory?
Once you set the president by bailing out banks when they should fold for vast sums of money its hard to say where it should end.
Banks too
If you look into Nissan and it’s reasons for choosing Sunderland I think you’ll find industrial relations came into it. At the time Sunderland had no history of car making whereas Liverpool did and had just as much available skilled labour. I read somewhere that the decision on Sunderland was made partly because of it was less militant union-wise than Liverpool and the Japanese manufacturing methods meant that the skills in Liverpool were not really that important. Plus Sunderland had to sign up to a single union. In 30 yearS Sunderland has not had a single day lost due to industrial action. Employment Law and modern management should negate the need to turn back the clock on union powers. If workers are being abused then guilty parties should be prosecuted.
True enough.
I listened to McDonnell on LBC and he intimated that any part of the NHS purse that contributed to private profits needed to be nationalised long-term. He was questioned firstly on GP practices, then charities (e.g. Great Ormond Street) and then to pharmacies, which he stuck to his guns about. I'm curious as to why the interviewer didn't push it further. Nationalise the paper industry because the NHS buys paper and therefore contributes to private profits. Nationalise IT businesses as the NHS uses IT. Even my business of manufacturing/distributing fire doors supplies to the public sector and therefore by McDonnell's definition is the public purse contributing to private profits.
It's irrelevant whether something is more efficient in private hands with a profit, compared with public hands without one. For McDonnell, Corbyn and Co it's ideological.
Last edited:
Following 2008 where bank rescues were necessary to save the entire financial system, banks now have to produce 'living wills' which should allow them to fail without bringing down the whole economy. Whether these would in fact work as intended if we were in the midst of another 'once in century' economic meltdown remains to be seen.
Either way, banks are clearly systemically important to the entire functioning and liquidity of the economy in a way that a travel agent or greetings card retailer is not.
We will see about that.
I rest my case.
Bye then.
Christ, Labour's ability to miss these countless open goals is beyond infuriating.
Is Corbyn going to buy everyone a PC or a Laptop as well so they can use the broadband?
ok boomer...cellphones.
My cellphone doesn't use broadband nor does anyone else's I would have thought.
Yes Liverpool's reputation did go against it, but bear in mind that Sunderland is by no means the only successful car manufacturer in Britain. Your point about a single union is a good one, I think both government and the unions themselves have long recognised it as the best option, after all they set up that system in Germany after the war, but persuading existing unions here to merge proved too difficult unfortunately. Quite right about modern management and employment law, as I have already said.
Do you not connect to the WiFi at home?
This is a very good point. For example the NHS sub contracts the sterilisation of tools used in operations. Why should the NHS necessarily provide this quite specialist service? Since its been outsourced its been done cheaper, why bring that back in house?
No I only use the cellphone when I'm out and have unlimited access in a package but if you did will Corbyn buy the cellphone or will he buy the box your wifi is connected to.
watch how "libcafe" has responded to a fairly mild and gradual plan for nationalisation. the uk is and has been inherently conservative, anti-worker and anti-public investment for a while, i think since thatcher privatised public housing.
Absolutely. It's a win-win for everyone, cheaper cost and better service. The problem is McDonnell would prefer to pay more and receive a worse service in order to deprive a person their earned profits.
It's the same with this broadband. They'd nationalise it which would take away any incentive for the people who run the business to innovate and drive continual improvement. That would cause a worsening of productivity which would require extra central funds; which would result in worsening productivity which would require even greater funds. BT should be broken up rather than made worse by nationalisation.
It's widely accepted that monopolies become complacent and inefficient as it's easier to raise the cost rather than drive efficiencies when the customer has no other choice. Bizarrely though the left suddenly think if it becomes a nationalised operation all the inate problems that come with monopolisation and the reasons we have legislation against monopolies suddenly disappear.
On the minimum wage discussion, one thing I have oft thought would seem a good idea is that in any company, the highest paid person(s) can only receive at most 300% (or whatever) of what the lowest paid person(s) receive.
Obviously there would be a lot of loopholes to try to sort out, but I think the principle is decent.
Obviously there would be a lot of loopholes to try to sort out, but I think the principle is decent.
Posted at 3:44. Come on Colin clearly none of us are working hard if we're on here during working hours. Except me, but that's because I'm great.I don't have you free time, some of us have to work for a living
Those damn unions causing grief and giving workers better and equal pay, sickness benefits, more holidays, improving health and safety and child labour laws and whatnot. All I could afford this month thanks to them was just TWO monocles. Marxist bastards.
They did their job and got changes to employment laws etc. They over-stepped the mark in the 70,s in my view. Now they don’t need the powers they had.
As a current Civil Servant, the idea that public-ownership takes away the incentive to improve services is laughable. The idea that privatisation in general saves money is equally laughable. The amount of time 'factory floor' staff in my organisation spend firefighting issues caused by the companies we've outsourced inward processing and call-centres to outweighs the savings the outsourcing was supposed to deliver. At the same time, we're currently spending millions overhauling the 'customer experience' to make accessing our services easier, even though they're already far better than the service offered by other countries.
When people cite these bits of received wisdom it just underlines to me that their understanding of the public sector comes from right-wing ideologues rather than any lived experience.
When people cite these bits of received wisdom it just underlines to me that their understanding of the public sector comes from right-wing ideologues rather than any lived experience.
Depends on the union. If you're in my field we've been fecked over by management and also our colleagues in another union who "got theirs" and then promptly abandoned us. On about five occasions now.
On your second point though I've been wondering about that. As a union man myself I've noticed that people of my generation have very little say or power to deliver positive change, and it's because in order to get change you need support and without public support we're kind of fecked. As you say, the overstepping in the 70's probably was the start of that "oh, here we go again. More disruption" perception.
- Status