[Politics] Do we need a General Strike?

[rogersix]

All these people demanding pay rises must understand that their increases will mean cuts elsewhere. There isn't a bottomless pit of money. Reserves were drained during Lockdown, when the government supported the vast majority of the population, to stay at home, stay safe and still be paid 80% of their salaries. The increases in gas/electric and fuel prices have helped recoup some revenue but the coffers are still pretty empty.
In the private sector, employers are faced with harsh decisions. Defer wage increases and keep jobs or cut jobs and find a bit extra for those who are left. We all have sympathy with key workers but there now seems to be an element of everyone jumping on the bandwagon and demanding more. It feels like the country is now being held to ransom.
These are tough times for everybody. Hundreds of businesses are closing daily and it will get worse before it gets better.

held to ransom like the banks in 2008 you mean? the money was found then, because it was imperative.

what makes you think that, "it's tough times for everybody"?

do you think that the seriousness of the situation now merits a wealth tax?

for our once great nation, and our people

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was listening to a bloke on 5live this morning describing how his had was left on a trolley in A&E for two days till he was covered in his own shit and blood, before eventually being seen. He died some days later.

My experience in hospital a few months ago was similar in terms of neglect and failure. I sat in A&E all day then at 9 PM was told we (everyone waiting) wouldn't be seen till some time the next day, so I was asked to sign a waiver to be allowed to go home (effectively taking responsibility for any consequences of leaving A&E). Distressing.

The acute problem is shortage of staff. That's down to Brexit, and the sterling efforts of the tories to keep us free of forringers.

Behind that is an institutional failure that affects all public sector activities, caused by repeated enforced 'rationalizations' and 'reorganizations' to save money that have involved a massive expansion in the number of people employed to bean count, a massive expansion in red tape, and a massive fall in the number of man hours spent 'doing the job'.

In January I will spend several days filling out an online data base to report all my teaching and teaching-related activities. The spredsheet used to be rolled over from previous years for editing (a 5 minute job). Now they are bleached of content so I have to go through my paper diary (or keep an independent spreadsheet - which is what I now do) so I can plough through the exercise. The data are used to determine who might be invited to resign for a combination of insufficient teaching hours coupled with an inability to raise funds for research (which we have to apply for, by preparing complicated applications). Did I train as an academic to do all this? Whose need is being met? Not mine. The public's?

All this is to ensure that the employer can say that the public are getting value for money from my employ. And the money my employer spends to keep us all 'measured' far outweighs than the money saved that would have been 'wasted' paying me and my colleagues for doing their job sub optimally. It's a bit like employing 100 people to manage the England football squad's completion of surveys and forms (which they are required to update weekly) about their diet and training in the hope this will help Southgate decide who to select for the team.

I have recently spent days arranging to have three PhD students, already registered in my institution, 'set up' so they can help me with some lab-based teaching in January. They all had to spend hours registering with an employment agency (which includes showing original documentary proof of the right to work in the UK). I then worked with someone employed full time by my institution to help academics set up these people as 'GTAs' (graduate teaching assistants).

So, we employ someone (in fact there are several people) to work full time helping academics do the paperwork needed so that British citizens, already registered as students in my institution, can help us to do some lab-based teaching. This is complete utter f***ing madness, and it is just one small example of the bullshit we have had forced upon us over the years to ensure that we don't accidentally 'employ' a refugee or terrorist. I hope you are all feeling safer and can sleep more comfortably in your beds.

General strike? No. That's just silly

But 'ban all strikes'? I see the names of those voting for that, and some of the comments. Good grief. Yes, "spend five years training to become a specialist nurse and if you don't like the pay and conditions, just f*** off and get a different job. There are loads of vacancies. Retrain! There is no need for 'poverty' in the UK - it is all self-inflicted". People genuinely believe this. Oh well, never mind.

As for those moaning that Starmer won't increase our pay, FFS. We need to sweep this venal and useless tory gang into the sea and then spend the necessary years setting this country up to survive and thrive. It will be almost impossibly difficult, with the hard right and hard left moaning that everything hasn't been instantly fixed after 6 months of a labour government.

I just hope that Starmer can be stoic and mix up some band-aid fixes with long term infrastructural change. The tories have spent a long time arranging things in the opposite direction, so that people like me have to jump through hoops to prove that our own students, who we want to give a bit of extra work to, are not illegal immigrant terrorists. The college and the government already know these GTAs are legal, because they have already gone through checks when they first came to my university. I mean, what the actual f***? At the same time, the tory gang is happy to offer wheezes that allow companies that exist in name only to bogart hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer's money (vide, 'Baroness' Mone). We have had decades of degradation of the NHS, state education, the rail 'service' (privatized, but taxpayer subsidised) rail done deliberately by the tories to put working people (which is most of us) in a position of dependency. Dependency on the status quo.

And it has worked. So many of you think strikes should be banned. Ridiculous.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Then what’s the answer? Because you could equally say it‘s time to ’reform’ public transport - I don‘t mean that in any confrontational way either. The NHS and Education (and to some extent public transport) have been used as political footballs as long as I can remember - maybe a change of Government won’t come from these strikes, and if it did, would it even change anything?

I have some doubt public support for continuing disparate strike action will last, hence suggesting a General Strike might have more impact, more quickly and have more luck in precipitating a change of government. People it seems vote for and support (or don’t support) whatever they feel affects them directly- it’s probably not surprising that the nurses and teachers have the greatest public support for their strike action compared to civil servants and barristers so it’s a little bit pick and choose with the public at the moment.

Strike dates: Who is striking and what pay do they want?

Hundreds of thousands of workers have been taking part in industrial action.

www.bbc.co.uk

However, the current quasi-privatisation of the public sector eg the railway network, education and the NHS makes national strikes much harder - (legal disputes can only be between a worker and their employee - When you have multiple employees within any one sector it fragments the workforce) - Norman Tebbit’s far reaching trade relations reforms under Employment Act 1982 greatly undermined the TUs ability to call legal strike action and the ballots also undermine the chances of national action - for example, in East Anglia, I think we are one of the only regions where the ambulances have voted against strike action but in doing so, undermines public support for strike action everywhere else.

Anyway just some thoughts to ponder

I personally think we should be moving towards the Dutch/German model of part public part private funding, seems to be miles ahead of the NHS.

Whoever is in charge needs to show a backbone and announce an independent body to review it all, ideally with people from those countries that worked in the system.

You can argue it is underfund, but also that the money it does get is also partly wasted by poor management decisions without much accountability.

There won’t be a review, because it’s just a political football, Tories announce it the normal dullards will shout they are trying to sell it, I don’t think Labour will want to touch it either. We are stuck with the system.

 

[rogersix]

Absolutely but that is not what the punters want to read, so please stop this unwelcome dose of reality.

that is pretty funny.

you won't realise it yet, but your philosophy is what got us here in the first place!

 

[jimhigham]

My youngest is due to fly into Heathrow at 5am on the 23rd from Cape Town. Really hoping they get back OK as the missus is already panicking about not having him home for Christmas.

My youngest is due to fly into Heathrow at 5am on the 23rd from Cape Town. Really hoping they get back OK as the missus is already panicking about not having him home for Christmas.

That will probably be fine. It will be among the very first flights of the day, which means queues won’t have had time to build up. Also, assuming he’s a British National, he should have the option of the e-gates, which removes another risk.

The biggest risk at this stage is the airline cancelling the flight.

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

At the moment there is no plan to cancel flights, just might be a delay/getting bags sorted on arrival.

That'll be fun with 20+ kit bags to claim. None of the lads will want those going missing or delayed!

 

[Zeberdi]

But we have two more years to go before we get the chance to change Government. Shirely people understood what they were voting for

I think there are a lot more pennies still to drop, if this thread is anything to go by

Not necessarily - The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 replaced the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and means the Monarch can dissolve Parliament at any time at the request of the PM.

These strikes if they spread/develop into a de facto General Strike, could effectively bring the Country to a standstill which will without doubt prompt Labour/Libs or even Tory backbenchers to table Motion of No Confidence in the Government. If a Vote of No Confidence passes – which would require a simple majority of the Commons’ 650 MPs – the most likely outcome and one that convention expects, is that the PM resigns, a general election is triggered and Parliament dissolved by the King at the request of the PM.

When people voted in December 2019, the Country was in a very different place - Brexit negotiations were at a standstill and the impact of a completed Brexit process was yet to be felt, Covid-19 had not yet spread to the UK nor caused the Country to go into lockdown, Russia had not yet invaded Ukraine - the Country has had 3 Prime Ministers since December 2019 and has only voted for the Party led by one of them - I don’t think it really fair to look at the current political state of affairs or some of the recent behaviour of our PMs and say the electorate ’understood what it voted for’.

 

[Justice]

Time to move out, I’ve always fancied taking tourists out on a boat on a beautiful Greek island for the rest of my days. One problem I don’t have a boat

 

[Bold Seagull]

But having infrastructure owned and controlled by the Govt is still capitalism. I totally agree with you tho, essential infrastructure services such as energy, water, rail and the NHS should be state owned and not a cash cow for greedy executives/ owners.

But that's not what the poster I quoted said. He said we should get rid of capitalism.

Agreed, but I think the implication was perhaps a system back to some state control as you say, rather than the rampant capitalist ideological path we are currently on, and regardless of what employers throw at employees, for some it seems the only right they should have is to leave. Sad times really when that is the agenda.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Agreed, but I think the implication was perhaps a system back to some state control as you say, rather than the rampant capitalist ideological path we are currently on, and regardless of what employers throw at employees, for some it seems the only right they should have is to leave. Sad times really when that is the agenda.

I personally think we should be moving towards the Dutch/German model of part public part private funding, seems to be miles ahead of the NHS.

Whoever is in charge needs to show a backbone and announce an independent body to review it all, ideally with people from those countries that worked in the system.

You can argue it is underfund, but also that the money it does get is also partly wasted by poor management decisions without much accountability.

There won’t be a review, because it’s just a political football, Tories announce it the normal dullards will shout they are trying to sell it, I don’t think Labour will want to touch it either. We are stuck with the system.

Agreed ..if only we could take health, education etc away from politicians

 

[Beanstalk]

held to ransom like the banks in 2008 you mean? the money was found then, because it was imperative.

what makes you think that, "it's tough times for everybody"?

do you think that the seriousness of the situation now merits a wealth tax?

for our once great nation, and our people

Though he was talking about the pandemic, Damian Barr's quote "We are not all in the same boat. We are all in the same storm." is more than applicable here?

You're spot on here. If you saying "it's tough times for everybody" you're probably saying that from a pretty safe platform.

 

[rogersix]

Because Communism or Dictatorship or Kingdoms are a better choice?

Capitalism is far from perfect but at least we get a say in who runs the country every few years and complain/moan on here and in life about how f'ed up the Govt is. Good luck with that in the old USSR, Nazi Germany, China, Cambodia under Pol Pott etc etc etc. Without a visit from the secret police.

History is full of examples that power doesn't belong in the hands of a very small few or single person (any less people than we have in our electoral system).

would you hold up america as an example for britain to follow?

 

[rogersix]

Whilst the figures you quote about firms like Amazon, are very annoying, you show again that you tend to be only too ready to over-simplify matters, choosing to quote convenieint issues, and in order to give some credence to your thoughts, throw all sorts of wild statements about botomless pits, hundreds of black holes and a tendency to blame the common man for society's ills, not that i have ever seen or read such a thing.

eh?

 

[rogersix]

Yes, fully agree. Capitalism is clearly not perfect as it can encourage greed as well as far more admirable entrepreunerism, but looking around the world, and back in history, it is a hell of a lot better than the alternatives we have witnessed and continue to do so. Yes, we could lurch to the left and install a worker's paradise, though strangely, this type of government needs a secret police to enforce the policies, which should be the warning sign for everyone contemplating such a change.

you've been watching too many hollywood films,

careful over crimbo, you may well get indoctrinated

 

[rogersix]

But having infrastructure owned and controlled by the Govt is still capitalism. I totally agree with you tho, essential infrastructure services such as energy, water, rail and the NHS should be state owned and not a cash cow for greedy executives/ owners.

But that's not what the poster I quoted said. He said we should get rid of capitalism.

so what wouldn't you nationalise, ports and airports?

 

[rogersix]

If we have one, which looks likely, and then the subsequent GE which Starmer wins 1997 style, in the current global situation what will Labour do any differently?

To a much lesser scale we've had it Worthing, Labour swept to power in May for the first time ever, all very well meaning, they were going to do this, going to do that, get into office and realise there's still only XYZ in the budget and the issues are still the same.

meaningful change takes time old chap, what did you expect to happen in six months?

philosophy needs to be front and centre

 

[rogersix]

I personally think we should be moving towards the Dutch/German model of part public part private funding, seems to be miles ahead of the NHS.

Whoever is in charge needs to show a backbone and announce an independent body to review it all, ideally with people from those countries that worked in the system.

You can argue it is underfund, but also that the money it does get is also partly wasted by poor management decisions without much accountability.

There won’t be a review, because it’s just a political football, Tories announce it the normal dullards will shout they are trying to sell it, I don’t think Labour will want to touch it either. We are stuck with the system.

the tories have managed to create a lot middle mangement positions within the nhs for all the privately educated, intellectual pygmies, maybe the first thing to look at is, are they value for money?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Though he was talking about the pandemic, Damian Barr's quote "We are not all in the same boat. We are all in the same storm." is more than applicable here?

You're spot on here. If you saying "it's tough times for everybody" you're probably saying that from a pretty safe platform.

Yeah I'm down to my last six Dom Perignon.

 

[Da Man Clay]

It isn’t unreasonable for workers in any sector to expect their wages to cover their basic living costs and provide a bit extra besides.

This stopped being the case about 24 months ago, and with the most recent increases in food and fuel (both home and vehicle) many are having to turn to credit to fund basic requirements such as vehicle maintenance, and any discretionary spending at all. This is not sustainable. You can not ask workers to work for less than it costs them to maintain their household.

These recent inflationary pressures are not driven by wage increases, but substantial wage increases will be required across public and private sectors to deal with them. There’s no way around that without a sustained deflationary period, which is looking highly unlikely.

I absolutely agree that the books need to be balanced, and so this means tax rises, regardless of which party is in power. There is no feasible alternative outside of reducing what government does substantially and closing entire departments.

It stopped being the case more than 24 months ago for a chunk of public sector workers. Years and years of austerity and capped wage rises below inflation (and well below inflation on occasions) has taken its toll. Unsurprisingly the latest cost of living has exacerbated the problem but this series of strikes was always coming.

 

[rogersix]

Agreed ..if only we could take health, education etc away from politicians

privatise health and education?!?

maddest thing i've read on this board