Unions and strikes -a real threat or just a succesful media promotion.

Most interesting Allygran, thank you

Well, if it is in the Daily Mail it must be true. No chance of that newspapers offshore tax haven owner putting his own political slant on any artical is there.

Allygran1, respectfully, how do you connect all the above to the thread topic of the Trade Unions and their perceived threat or not to the stability of this country.

Sixty years old Jon Lansman the founder of corbyns neo-Marxist "praetorian guard" (Daily Mail) is a far left activist multi millionaire. The organisation is registered to his first floor Butler's Wharf home overlooking the Thames and London Bridge. Prices are around £6.2 million for the Penthouse, with 4,000 per year service charges. As the article in the Daily Mail observes " a far left organisation dedicated to the destruction of such conspicuous wealth" this seems hypocritical.

The Daily Mail article points out :Momentum launched a mass campaign against the “appalling working conditions” in the fast food giant's. In 2014 Mr Lansman’s far left group:Left Futures think tank criticised “goliath corporations like McDonald’s” for “boosting its mega profits by forcing 90 per cent of its workforce to live on zero-hours”. Whilst at the same time the company FPC is owned and run by Jon Lansmans family. The Daily Mail reports, "FPC website proudly states it “asset manages a portfolio of Little Chefs, through two tenant administrations, securing over 100 transactions to date, including multiple lettings to McDonald’s and Starbucks”.
The Daily Mail article reported that ,"Momentum recently bragged that an online video it made for £30 was watched by a quarter of McDonald’s UK employees.
It shows zero-hours workers with burns on their arms, complaining about being short-staffed and a lack of first aid training."
"Another of the FPC venture's was the sale of a homeless hostel in central London for £22.5million, with the loss of 170 beds."
The Daily Mail revealed that the "Momentum constitution names Left Futures far-left organisation as affiliated".
They say that the revelations will heap yet more embarrassment on Jon Lansman who was privately educated, at Birkbeck, University Of London, Clare College Cambridge, Highgate School. Mr Lansman who once worked as “chief-fixer” for staunch left-winger Tony Benn and now neo-marxist/trotskyist in chief and Mr fix it for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5002774/How-ex-public-schoolboy-Jon-Lansman-hijacking-Labour.html

It seems the Momentum's leader is a 'false profit".

"This was Labour’s manifesto last June." This is the analysis of the cost and or implications of those policy's:

1.Scrap student tuition fees:
Analysis:
Retracted pledge (Angela Rayner) and John McDonald:
Labour retracted its pledge to abolish student debt yesterday as Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner said there had been “no plans” to write-off existing loans and her party “never promised to do so”.
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/07/19/labour-retracts-tuition-fees-pledge-angela-rayner-says-no-plans/

2. Nationalisation of England's nine water companies.:
Analysis: Ofwat says the regulatory capital value of the water companies in England and Wales stands at £66bn, excluding debt or pension liabilities. The cost of taking them back into public ownership is not included in the manifesto costings as it would be funded through capital borrowing. John McDonnell said on Tuesday that the process could either be through outright purchase or an exchange of shares in water companies for bonds. Senior Welsh Labour figures immediately suggested that Welsh Water’s not-for-profit structure might be a better model.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges

3.Re-introduce the 50p rate of tax on the highest earners (above £123,000)
Income tax rate 45p on £80,000 and above:
Analysis: Labour has pledged not to raise the tax burden of those on low and middle incomes. The standard income tax rate will remain unchanged as will VAT. That means someone on the average wage of £26,500 will pay the same. Labour plans to apply the 45p rate to the 500,000 who earn between £80,000 and £100,000. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said this group would pay on average £400 more a year. The 300,000 earning between £100,000 and £123,000 would lose up to £2,725 while the 50,000 earning over £500,000 would all lose at least £22,900 a year. Philip Inman
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges

4.More free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds
Analysis: To create sufficient childcare places to meet their pledge, Labour would replace parents’ vouchers with directly government-subsidised places. The party acknowledges that this will need substantial capital investment in the first two years to create the places.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges

5.Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes:
Analysis: Freezing the state pension age is a costly measure, though for the next parliament rather than this one. But a Labour win would alter people’s calculations over what they need to save, so the policy change is important. Early estimates of the impact have ranged between £90bn and £300bn over the next 30 years, significantly adding to government borrowing or the level of taxation.
Plus:
Analysis: There is no mention of this pledge in the manifesto or costings document. There are no spare funds in Labour’s calculations for extra welfare spending. To counteract the effects of planned cuts, under Labour’s current plans it would need to increase borrowing. A further policy paper is promised.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges

6.End to zero hours contracts
Labour has pledged to ban all zero-hours contracts, put a halt to unpaid internships and end the pay cap on public sector staff in an unashamedly leftwing pitch to British workers.
In a move welcomed by union leaders but that will be attacked as “anti-business” and unaffordable by opponents, the 20-point blueprint also includes commitments to double paid paternity leave to four weeks, increase paternity pay and guarantee temporary and part-time workers the same rights as full-time employees.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/29/election-labour-mcdonnell-corbyn-zero-hours-economy

7. Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters
Analysis: Public sector recruitment: An earlier pledge to recruit 1,000 extra border guards has been halved to 500 and a promise to recruit 3,000 firefighters has been added. The extra costs of 10,000 police officers are budgeted at £300m but the costs of 3,000 more prison officers, the extra firefighters and border staff are not separately identified.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges

8.Moves to charge companies a levy on salaries above £330,000:
Analysis: An excessive pay levy is Labour’s attempt to tackle stratospheric wages with an extra tax. It would affect everyone from company bosses to well-paid sportspeople. With a starting rate of “total compensation” of £330,000 a year, the total raised “would be over £1.3bn”.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges

9.Deliver rail electrification "including in Wales and the South West".:
No costings.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges

There have only been two overtly political strikes in Britain since the formation of the Labour movement at the turn of the twentieth century. The first was in 1926 when the newly formed Trade Union Congress made a "complete botch" of the situation, with the second being the 1984-1985 miners strike.

Arthur Scargill and the majority of his executive without doubt feit that a political change would be necessary if the deep mines of Britain were to have any long term future. The National Coal Board was assuring the grassroots miners that wholesale closure of mines would not be necessary, but all knew that would not be the situation into the future.

Scargill and the executive after having a setback in one ballot eventually called for national action without a full ballot of all members and in that split not only the mining union(s) but also the larger Labour movement in the country. In areas such as the Welsh valleys miners realized that they were not only fighting for their jobs, but also for their whole communities where the coal industry was the only employment on offer.

However, the wider trade union movement in the country was not prepared to become involved in what they seen as covertly political action by the miners union and little practical support was offered throughout the twelve months of the dispute. By example to the foregoing, the executive of the then Transport & general workers union (now the Unite Union) came under huge pressure from its own membership in its fuel distribution sector to "cut off" supplies of diesel to hauliers involved in running the Orgreave coke plant blockade. However, the executive decided not to sanction such a process as secondary action had been ruled illegal under the Thatcher government trade union legislation.

The above I believe demonstrates the acceptance by the trade union movement over many years that any democratically elected government should not be politically challenged through industrial action. In that it is believed that the political ambitions of the trade union movement should be brought about through Labour party policies which is the situation today.

However, there are those in the ownership of the press that are still not content with the trade unions taking a constitutional route to obtain their political ambitions. These persons normally from the sanctuary of their overseas tax havens attempt to seed fear in the minds of the public by way of "the communist threat" or "Veniswaylen mismanagement of the economy".

However, what the above leaches fail to realise would be that if you are working on a zero hours contract or in the gig economy, if you are working, but still have to support yourself and your family by way of a food bank or if your home is in private rented accommodation which your family can be evicted from on twenty eight days notice, then for you the economy is already mismanaged.

To the above persons and those that are appalled by such situations in Britain and wish to see a fairer, more equal soicety, a radical alternative such as the present Labour party policies which are fully backed and supported by the trade unions to which they have engaged in creating, then that may well appear a far more attractive future.

Day6 Why do posters insist on repeating disproved facts and falsehoods. Wasn't the party totally split and heavily against Corbyn until Momentum and the youngsters got on board? It has been posted many times that both Momentum and the Labour party are not dominated by the young but have a lot of support from older people and the average age of a Labour supporter is 51.

The Labour party is a democratic organization and those which do not like what they see in that organization should fight for change from within. How else is any change brought about if not by those who are willing to fight for change

So we are to assume that every serving MP in the Labour Party now endorses Jeremy Corbyn?

I think not. Jeremy has Theresa May and her misjudgement to thank for his more elevated status.

Wasn't the party totally split and heavily against Corbyn until Momentum and the youngsters got on board? Time for the dissenting Labour MPs to sit down and shut up and they've been doing that ever since. But people don't forget their history..Corbyn received the lowest number of nominations from Labour parliamentarians at the time of the leadership. Corbyn lost a motion of no confidence by 197–40 as recently as 2016. Not very long ago. Rejecting calls for him to relinquish the leadership role, he vowed to stand in any resulting leadership challenge and even Angela Eagle voted for Smith.

Corbyn enjoyed little support from Labour MPs, and had low public approval, although support for him remains strong amongst Labour Party members. It's student politics and young radicals still shouting the loudest for him - unless of course you include his older Marxist allies now safely installed in every Labour sphere.

Many MPs are obviously staying quiet, marking time and not rocking the boat. They are going with the flow. And I'd bet Momentum has got their cards marked already.

If all had your attitude Day6 women would still not have the vote in Britain

What complete and utter b*llox Grandad. How wrong can you be! I am smiling a wry smile.
Not sure which orifice that judgement came out of but I could name the most likely one.

I think you'd be very surprised if you had even an inkling of my history in terms of pushing boundaries for women, standing up for our rights and encouraging others to do the same. You haven't a clue, but you do tend to generalise, so - do carry on getting it wrong.

trisher, go back and read my original post. But I will explain again. Air pollution regulations meant that British coal-fired power stations had to change from burning high- sulphur coal to burning low sulphur coal. Most of the coal produced in the UK is high in sulphur, so power stations had to import low-sulphur coal from countries whose coal enabled them to meet the high emission standards set by clean air regulations. This is why surviving power stations all run on imported coal.

I am aware that mining is still continuing in the UK but output is insignificantly low

No. Theresa May promised to help the Just about Managing. No sign of that happening!

Can you name the government which carried out their entire manifesto and didn't bring in anything which wasn't in their manifesto?

Sorry - Carte blanche.

This was Labour’s manifesto last June.

Scrap student tuition fees
Nationalisation of England's nine water companies.
Re-introduce the 50p rate of tax on the highest earners (above £123,000)
Income tax rate 45p on £80,000 and above
More free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds
Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes
End to zero hours contracts
Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters
Moves to charge companies a levy on salaries above £330,000
Deliver rail electrification "including in Wales and the South West".

I can’t see any policies that are “hard left” or give the unions caret blanche.

I agree Jennifer, whilst I want a labour government , with Corbyn as PM we would have a government controlled by unions as we did in the sixties and seventies plus we would have Momentum arranging demo's every week

Any reasoning behind your fears JenniferEccles or is it simply the result of the sustained press anti-union rhetoric?

As long as we have got a Conservative government in power I don't think we need to worry too much about the unions becoming too powerful and causing problems.

However, should Labour get in with the hard left Corbyn at the helm then God help us.

I wasn't comparing the two, Ab, just pointing out that there is still a demand for home produced coal.

Opencast mining cannot be compared with deep pit mining. Opencast means heavy machinary is used so far fewer jobs and big difference between this and sinking shafts
Miles below the surface, also opencast produces cheaper coal because less manpower

Good post, trisher

Perhaps MOnica isn't aware that coal mining is still happening in Britain. The Durham countryside has been systematically disfigured over the past few decades by a private company doing very nicely, thank you, out of opencast mining. They wouldn't be doing it if there weren't a market for the coal.

There was nothing wrong with the miners' case. It was extremely unfortunate that their leaders ineptly chose a time when coal stocks were high to pursue the strike.

There should have been a national ballot for the strike. Scargill kept his home , many miners lost theirs , and yes I campaigned in support of the strike , to save my stalker looking back through my old posts .

M0nica What was the point of striking to stop closures if the coal produced was unsaleable?
The coal was never "unsaleable". The pit closures were mostly driven by political aims. Yes there were some pits producing coal which was not needed, but now millions of tons of coal is imported to keep our fuel stations going. The miners were trying to ensure the closures were reasonable and carefully managed, Thatcher and her government simply wanted rid of the miners, regardless of the long term effects. How much her policy has cost in terms of imported fuel will never be known.

All union members vote Labour ? Yet only 13% of unite members bothered to vote for a leader last yesr ?

The best work done by the unions is the ordinary bread and butter work of looking after their members at shop floor level. Whether you work for a small company and are being expected to do more than your original contract demanded or are working for a big employer and being treated unfairly your union can help you stand up against mistreatment and injustice, as I know to my benefit.

When it comes to the big national strikes I am a lot less comfortable. Too often the unions seem to be trying to stop changes in industry that are inevitable and by holding back modernisation, do indeed damage the economy.

The miners strike was certainly, first and foremost, about pit closures, which were happening because the coal industry had been in decline for decades. The transfer from coal gas to natural gas had removed a big market for coal, the use of gas instead of coal in many industries and in homes reduced demand even more and air pollution measures (anyone remember the London smogs?) meant that power stations had to burn low-sulphur coal and almost all of the coal produced in Britain has a high sulphur content.

Trying to stop pit closures was like trying to push water up hill, mines were closing because demand for coal was in freefall. What was the point of striking to stop closures if the coal produced was unsaleable? The same backwards mentality lay behind both the dockworkers and printers strikes.

What is more these strikes lost the unions both respect and credibility and by their actions invited and engendered support for the legislation that limited their activities.

I have never understood why the unions think it a matter of pride to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

But Annie I am a member of the larger Labour movement in the country and the largest subscriber to the section of that movement that you have subscribed to for so many years. Therefore we are all comrades together willing to help one and another in times of discontent. That's why we all subscribe to the movement annie

Thank you grandad , after fifty years as a party member I don't help, certaintly not from someone who isn't a member of the party

anniebach, as you state I am relatively new to these forum so perhaps you could afresh in form me of your work and positions in the Labour Party. Just trying to help with your discontent with the organization.