It's the fault of London Underground employees that people work zero hours contracts? Do you think that the ability and willingness to strike would increase or decrease the likelihood of zero hour contracts in any given industry? Commuters are inconvenienced at most with sufficient warning, against the livelihood of maybe 20,000 workers.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
It's the fault of London Underground employees that people work zero hours contracts? Do you think that the ability and willingness to strike would increase or decrease the likelihood of zero hour contracts in any given industry? Commuters are inconvenienced at most with sufficient warning, against the livelihood of maybe 20,000 workers.
both are cnuts in their books
People generally do that when they get up late and have not heard about the strike so have no contingency plan to get to work.
You're a cnut and I hope someone gives you a smack
its the government's fault who allows such an essential service to be at the mercy of people who would strike for the most trivial of issues.
I assure you its not the case. There again you hate working in England hence why you left
It depends on your interpretation of trivial
ex their annual hefty pay-rise
That's not why I left and I have said I would like to go back one day
resorting to insults and violence. Typical
It's hardly been ignored, the rightwing press being massively unfair Labour leaders has been a given for decades. The problem with Corbyn is that he's one of the easiest MPs for them to attack, probably second only to John McDonnell. They can attack him on security, they can attack him on his past connections, they can attack him on the economy. They'll also attack John McDonnell, and use that to attack Corbyn's judgement. Don't pretend this wasn't warned about.
Stop being dramatic. The livelihood of 20k workers is not as stake. They have better work conditions and salaries then most of us and they strike for the most trivial of issues (ex they are fed up of being 'harassed' at work).
The General public would rally in defence of employees whose genuinely have a point. The doctor's strike found overwhelming support and I am proud to have done my bit despite not being in the field myself. What people cant stomach is abuse. That's why bankers are hated and from experience the tube drivers aren't that much far off.
Strikes like that hurt not only the economy and create huge inconvenience to millions of workers. It also increase the bad perception of unions and political parties who support them. In a globalised world we have to pick the right battles to fight. That's what the labour party in Malta did. It refused to support the bus drivers who wanted to stop privatisation as it eroded their extremely generous work rights (they were pretty the closest thing we had to your version of spoiled brats) and then went hard on companies employing people on zero hours. Guess what? He found support by everybody on that and according to the Eurostat poverty in Malta had been reduced
His next battle will be rent, whose increasing exponentially thanks to Brexit. I have 3 houses on rent in Malta. I refuse to rent at market price (in matter of fact Im renting at 40-50% below market value) and I support any caps being made as long as its done sensibly.
Abuse shouldn't be tolerated irrespective who does it. Doing so would weaken our credibility and would hurt the left wing
Last edited:
They do get harassed, frequently. A pregnant customer assistant was assaulted earlier this year for example. They're paid reasonably well in one of the most expensive cities in the world. These aren't rich people. Your beliefs are built on a foundation of fantasy here. If you think it's such a great job then why don't you apply to be a tube driver? I can tell you it's not. It's one of the most mundane jobs out there, not to mention having to deal with people throwing themselves in front of your train - that stays with you forever. I don't care if you support the Doctors, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Weird the Tory conspiracy has historically overestimated Labour's support, huh.
If that happens then its regrettable. However that's a police matter and should not be used as another excuse to make a strike and hurt the country's economy + the hordes of people who must go to work. My point is that there's a difference between making sure that a person is treated right and allowing abuse to happen. The latter is to be condemned irrespective if the person is a tube driver or a banker.
Regarding your second point
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...e-a-Tube-driver-Well-you-cant.-Heres-why.html
Is that true?
Anyone can join an apprenticeship or join the company in another capacity then work their way to become a train driver - it's an established path that all the current drivers must have taken. I've read enough articles on either side to know that they're almost entirely bollocks. I wouldn't be basing my beliefs on them. To be honest it's not your position to say what people should or should not strike over. I don't know why you think you're able to make that distinction for them.
You think I'm being dramatic but you ask people in the police, NHS, fire services & teachers if they wish they had stronger unions both in the past and present day. Their professions have been decimated and dumbed down to a degree over time, so I do not think that I'm being that dramatic. I find it hard to believe that someone could brand a whole industry of people 'cnuts' and rejoice the day that 'all of them are fired' because of how much they care about 'the economy' and people being mildly inconvenienced on their commute to work. Perhaps your feeling towards Maltese bus drivers are spilling over a bit. That is the nicest assumption I could make about you.
And do they always get it wrong? Who pays them?
Can we have an undecided on the poll?
It's more just the typical Shy Tory effect. It's been seen time and time again.
Not that I subscribe to the conspiracy - but that could be a way of mobilising their own voters.
So you're conceding that they don't strike merely because their livelihood is at stake.
You're also conceding that its a company with a closed mentality whose jobs are for the boys. Which makes you wonder? Why? You said its a terrible job to work in and yet the company seem not open to allow people from the outside to apply. Maybe the work conditions and salaries are so good that it gives the luxury to companies not to recruit from the outside? If that's the case, then why on earth do they strike so much?
And I was referring to the people's perception of them and how they would react if they end up losing their jobs. Believe it or not, I've seen that happening before so I have a good idea what would happen if tube drivers are hit. Lets say, I would be very surprised if they find the same overwhelming support doctors found during their strike.
During the next election the Torries will be in negotiations with their Europe counterparts. Regardless of how people stand to brexit, most voters support their side once they perceive that there is a conflict with foreign nations. The “support us or you hurt the outcome of the negotiations” argument will be implicit and it will work wonders. It always does. It will be very hard for Labour to oppose the Torries on anything that relates to Brexit and Brexit will be the dominating topic. So even if Labour would be strong, it would be a very difficult election. Considering the state of Labour and these circumstances, anything but a historically bad result would be a positive surprise.
Pretty sure at this point that Corbyn will paint a 25 seat loss as a good result.
If May gets the trust of the British people to allow her to lead, where will it lead us? Endless U-turns won't take us far.
We're talking about one specific job role here in a company that has hundreds if not more roles that mainly do not have this kind of progression path. I don't fully understand all the quirks of becoming a train driver and what it takes. I do know that traditionally people have to start off at the company elsewhere and then work their way towards becoming a driver. This route is open to everybody, because everybody can potentially join at these other levels and everyone who became a driver must have taken it, so your article is a bit of a fallacy. I'm sure there are other jobs in other industries where you have to be promoted in a similar way due to the specific training and experience required for certain niche jobs. I don't accept it has a particularly 'closed mentality' in general compared to any other large company. Train drivers do not even have the best job on the Underground really and as far as I know that is the only role that has this reputation. I'm pretty sure the latest batch of night tube drivers were advertised externally anyway.
There is no reasoned answer to your loaded question.. each strike would have it's own merit (or not, according to you). Like I say, nobody takes the option of striking lightly. It's a last resort and most of them can't afford to be losing pay despite what you believe. You're really showing that you have no idea of the reality at all, despite your claims of 'real world experience'. You should consider that your perspective is merely an outsider and to take things you read with a pinch of salt.
Ive heard that said, but it never made sense. In a tight race, both sets of voters are motivated to turn out.
Last edited:
Tony Blair: vote Toryor Lib Dem where they are open-minded on Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-lib-dem-where-they-are-open-minded-on-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-lib-dem-where-they-are-open-minded-on-brexit
Well its simple enough. On 9th June we'll find out if the polls are right or wrong.
Just to remind people that Labour members were kicked out of the party, during the last leadership election, for saying things such as Labour should adopt some Green Party policies.
I am not familiar enough with details of your voting system to understand how different percentages of the popular vote translate into seats. I would be fairly surprised if Labour gets a higher vote share than they did in 1983 (27,6%). It could turn out significantly worse. At least thats the way I see it.
In a way it’s live to fight another day. Corbyn will be toast after the election anyway. The only question will be if there is anything left of Labour. From this perspective, losing 25 seats still looks okay.
Last edited:
25 seat loss is basically '83 redux, it was actually my fearmongering scenario during the original 2015 leadership race
So this time they're helpfully mobilising Labour voters?
Odds seem to suggest 150 to 200 seats (they got 209 in 83)25 seat loss is basically '83 redux, it was actually my fearmongering scenario during the original 2015 leadership race
I have put some money on 185 or under (and some on 199 or under)... which frankly is a disaster but I think it's realistic... they could even conceivably get below the 165 that major got when Blair massacred him... weak weak weak indeed
Meh. Paul Mason said the same thing the other day. Suggesting people vote tactically is something that crops up every election.