Bob Crow has died

[Herr Tubthumper]

And had street parties...after all,she was only a woman who dragged this country out of the Union power grip and lost the country's 'Sick man of Europe tag'.
That said,As much as BC was a Luddite who wanted to halt progress and modernisation...a man has passed away at a young age and I wouldn't wish that on anyone,condolences to his family...RIP Bob.

The UK needs more union power to help all those people being screwed on remporary contracts, 0 hours contracts and and/or minimum wages. They all add value to the UK but are alll being royally ****ed over. History and current research shows that if the working people have more confidence and security and money the economy flourishes. Something needs to be done and Bob believed in this.

 

[m20gull]

The UK needs more union power to help all those people being screwed on remporary contracts, 0 hours contracts and and/or minimum wages. They all add value to the UK but are alll being royally ****ed over.

And if unions concentrated on that instead of bullying the public in to pay rises when the rest of us are concentrating on working for a living I might have more sympathy for them. The RMT magazine comes through my door every month and it is all about confrontation, not cooperation.

But I still separate that from the sadness at his early death, the same age as me and only four years younger than the age my dad died of a sudden heart attack too. Sobering.

 

[The Large One]

Even though I'm a (passive) NUJ member, our publishing house doesn't recognise trade unions.

As for pay rises here, none for five years.

I hope the thumbs down was because he disagreed with my predicament of not having had a pay rise for five years, or the disappointment that our publishing house won't recognise trade unions. It's not something I'm happy about either.

 

[The Large One]

Bob crow is like all union wankers. The sooner they all **** off the better.

Yeah, sod safety, nuts to better working conditions, balls to representation and fairness.

Thankfully, not everyone drops their trousers and bends over to corporate greed and mismanagement.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And if unions concentrated on that instead of bullying the public in to pay rises when the rest of us are concentrating on working for a living I might have more sympathy for them. The RMT magazine comes through my door every month and it is all about confrontation, not cooperation.

But I still separate that from the sadness at his early death, the same age as me and only four years younger than the age my dad died of a sudden heart attack too. Sobering.

One man's confrontation is another man's negotiation. As an aside I'd rather people stand up for what they believe in. You might like it if our leaders are lilly-livered acquiesce roll over types which sadly so many in the UK are, but I prefer people like Crow in this world. Bullying the public? A day or two with a train strike is hardly a big deal and the TOCs are so shit they often serve up a trainless day themselves without the help of a union. If anything a union led day without transport will remind you what an important service he and his members provide.

Bob Crow RIP

 

[nicko31]

A classic remark from Bob was "there was nothing wrong with going back to the 1970's... I think few who lived through those times would agree with that.

Some Union bosses said yesterday that everyone was now singing Bob's praises. I wouldn't go that far, they were merely showing respect as anyone does if the event of death...

Its little surprise Bob supported Millwall, "No one likes me I don't care...''

 

[soistes]

I think you must have watched a different show to me - the money made by London is via Private Sector Service Industry, mostly Financial Services.

I'm sure the Tube Drivers etc. help out by getting these people to and from work but don't really see how they directly create any GDP?

With respect, this is tosh. Anyone with the most basic understanding of economics would know that the public sector (health, education, transport, utilities and the rest) makes a massive contribution to GDP. The notion that only the private sector contributes to "wealth creation" is simply wrong

 

[Baldseagull]

The public sector should get out in the real world and see how the real workers survive. The public sector is about greed.

Sounds like because you are on a shit wage with no pension you don't want to pay through taxes for public sector workers to have better?

In privatised services, the workers get lesser benefits, but shareholders expect a dividend and you pay for them with your utility bills etc.

One way or another, you pay. In one sector, the workers benefit, in the other investors benefit. I would rather see the workers benefit over someone who has seen a profit opportunity and bought in.

Did you know that the private company that maintains the national grid gets 30% over it's costs as payment, fixed by the regulators? They can spend as much as they like on the job, and bill +30% and it has to be paid by the utility companies that supply electricity, that is on your bill whoever you get your electric from, and the shareholders pocket it. Then the electricity company itself will add their margins and you pay that to their shareholders too.

Greed is a word you might want to label investors with, workers do at least have to get out of bed and do something for their money.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

With respect, this is tosh. Anyone with the most basic understanding of economics would know that the public sector (health, education, transport, utilities and the rest) makes a massive contribution to GDP. The notion that only the private sector contributes to "wealth creation" is simply wrong

This. Some people seem to think an educated healthy workforce just magically appear at work one day.

 

[Baldseagull]

With respect, this is tosh. Anyone with the most basic understanding of economics would know that the public sector (health, education, transport, utilities and the rest) makes a massive contribution to GDP. The notion that only the private sector contributes to "wealth creation" is simply wrong

Yes they contribute to the GDP figure, but so do the benefits paid to the job less, higher taxes and higher wages brings a bigger GDP, but the nation is not any better off.

 

[soistes]

Yes they contribute to the GDP figure, but so do the benefits paid to the job less, higher taxes and higher wages brings a bigger GDP, but the nation is not any better off.

Again, I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong in economic terms. The activities of the public sector - health, education etc -- contribute hugely to enhancing the productive potential of the economy, and that is why estimates of their output are included in GDP in the national accounts by the Office for National Statistics. A bigger GDP absolutely does mean that the nation is better off (at least in economic terms -- obviously there are other aspects of national welbeing that are not counted in the GDP figures) and anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't understand basic economics.
Benefits paid to the unemployed are 'transfer payments' in economic terms and contrary to your suggestion do not contribute directly to GDP, although there may be an indirect multiplier effect due to the fact that the recipients of benefits (poor people) tend to have a higher than average propensity to consume their income, so a transfer of income through the tax and benefit system could indirectly boost the economy in this way.

 

[Baldseagull]

Again, I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong in economic terms. The activities of the public sector - health, education etc -- contribute hugely to enhancing the productive potential of the economy, and that is why estimates of their output are included in GDP in the national accounts by the Office for National Statistics. A bigger GDP absolutely does mean that the nation is better off (at least in economic terms -- obviously there are other aspects of national welbeing that are not counted in the GDP figures) and anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't understand basic economics.
Benefits paid to the unemployed are 'transfer payments' in economic terms and contrary to your suggestion do not contribute directly to GDP, although there may be an indirect multiplier effect due to the fact that the recipients of benefits (poor people) tend to have a higher than average propensity to consume their income, so a transfer of income through the tax and benefit system could indirectly boost the economy in this way.

It's a rough guide, very rough. If someone puts a dent in my car and I pay someone to pull it out, money has moved hands but the nation is not richer and my car is just the same as it was before, but it shows up as GDP. An increase in teacher pension payments would increase GDP, and increase the tax take required, but the nation is not better off, just more money has moved from one group to another, the value provided has not been increased, the education received has not increased. Unless people on benefits are saving all the cash they receive, it ends up in the GDP figure. Increasing the population tends to increase GDP, but each individual could be poorer.
I am not trying to devalue Teachers etc. just that measuring their portion of GDP, either by the salary they receive or the money they spend, is a shit way of valuing them, and the wealth of the nation. If we export massively or we borrow massively, GDP will go up, but only one of them truly makes us richer.
I love your last sentence of how the economy could be "boosted" through the trickle down effects of welfare payments to the jobless, this is my point, measuring spending is mad. I agree government spending can drive an economy forward to some extent, but at some point private sector has to pay for it, the government doesn't (usually) just print money, it comes from the private sector taxes, public sector worker taxes is recycling of private sector tax takes.
If you are in a free market capitalist economy, the system still works without large numbers of public sector workers, it cannot work without large numbers of private sector workers.

 

[Norman Potting]

Guardian obit here from one of my favourite journalists

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/11/bob-crow

Interesting that he was considered a moderate by some, I recall reading/hearing somewhere that others in the union were far more to the left than he.

 

[jakarta]

It's a rough guide, very rough. If someone puts a dent in my car and I pay someone to pull it out, money has moved hands but the nation is not richer and my car is just the same as it was before, but it shows up as GDP. An increase in teacher pension payments would increase GDP, and increase the tax take required, but the nation is not better off, just more money has moved from one group to another, the value provided has not been increased, the education received has not increased. Unless people on benefits are saving all the cash they receive, it ends up in the GDP figure. Increasing the population tends to increase GDP, but each individual could be poorer.
I am not trying to devalue Teachers etc. just that measuring their portion of GDP, either by the salary they receive or the money they spend, is a shit way of valuing them, and the wealth of the nation. If we export massively or we borrow massively, GDP will go up, but only one of them truly makes us richer.
I love your last sentence of how the economy could be "boosted" through the trickle down effects of welfare payments to the jobless, this is my point, measuring spending is mad. I agree government spending can drive an economy forward to some extent, but at some point private sector has to pay for it, the government doesn't (usually) just print money, it comes from the private sector taxes, public sector worker taxes is recycling of private sector tax takes.
If you are in a free market capitalist economy, the system still works without large numbers of public sector workers, it cannot work without large numbers of private sector workers.

Thank You, this saves me having to post similar!

I was not knocking Train Drivers or any other Public Sector Workers. There are also Train Drivers etc. in Germany but I would suggest that the Germans make their money by building BMWs and Mercedes etc. and exporting them rather than driving trains.

 

[Nibble]

Shame we now have no-one decent to stick up for the working man against the dictatorial Tory government and old differs who are still under the mistaken belief Thatcher saved the country. She may have improved the lot of a few Home County right wingers and Daily Mail readers but she screwed most people in the UK over (not to mention attacking retreating ships in order to get re-elected) and sane people these days realise what a hideous mess she made of our country, sewing the seeds for pretty much every financial/housing/employment crisis that has followed her disastrous decade in power. Now we have Cameron going even further than the loathsome old crone dared. Bob Crow was a last vestige of working class sanity in an increasingly totalitarian United Kingdom. People will look back on BC's death and realise it was a very, very, very, dark day.

 

[soistes]

Thank You, this saves me having to post similar!

I was not knocking Train Drivers or any other Public Sector Workers. There are also Train Drivers etc. in Germany but I would suggest that the Germans make their money by building BMWs and Mercedes etc. and exporting them rather than driving trains.

Again - basic economics: some proportion of the value embodied in the BMWs and Mercedes is, in fact, generated by the train drivers who transport those components and raw materials (steel etc) which come to the car plants by rail, and the BMW workers who get from their home to the factory by rail. Equally, at the same time those drivers are also contributing to the value embodied in lots of other goods and services produced and exported by the German economy. The distinction you are making between private sector workers supposedly creating value and public sector workers not doing so, is an entirely fallacious one.

This is emphatically not a political point, it's just simple economic text book stuff.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/workers-create-wealth-even-in-the-public-sector-20120302-1u7zw.html
http://timharford.com/2011/12/youre-wrong-we-are-all-wealth-creators/

 

[Nibble]

No i wasnt born this morning, thanks for asking

what i meant was, i know briefly what he stood for etc, but it has never effected me, so i cant comment

obviously i was foolish to expect a normal response from some of the cretins on here

You made no sense and people asked you what you mean you react as above, proving not only are you illiterate but a rude little scrag - end to boot.

 

[fat old seagull]

Er, yes they did. FFS.


And it's batted, not battered you illiterate clown.

Not necessarily, they could be be battered, though I think you'd need an awful lot for a portion.

 

[drew]

The public sector should get out in the real world and see how the real workers survive. The public sector is about greed.

Any chance you can enlighten us as to what work you do that contributes so much to society or, what college course you are still on that will lead to a massive contribution to society?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

30 years ago today Arthur Scargill declared a national miners strike after the wildcat industrial action that had taken place by workers in coalfields all around the country during the previous week. Little did he know at the time that he was signing the death warrant for the trades union movement.