Jeremy Corbyn suggests earnings cap

[ALBION28]

Rubbish , union leaders were literally household names in the 70s , they led politically motivated disputes that nearly finished this country, anti union feeling was strong way before the last miners strike.

Right back at you. Were you there , were you part of a union? I was and worked hard to make life better for all. Very few had that negative agenda that you seem to think existed. It is little use bringing the country down as we are all part of it. It is better to built for all not the few surely. The political agenda you refer to was no more than trying to ensure better working conditions. It had a political aspect of course as the government was both the law maker as well as a major employer. The unions overall lost and the result, a society with huge inequalities. Guess this is how you like it.

 

[ALBION28]

rubbish, end of.

You need to do some research then you might not be so dismissive,

 

[alfredmizen]

Right back at you. Were you there , were you part of a union? I was and worked hard to make life better for all. Very few had that negative agenda that you seem to think existed. It is little use bringing the country down as we are all part of it. It is better to built for all not the few surely. The political agenda you refer to was no more than trying to ensure better working conditions. It had a political aspect of course as the government was both the law maker as well as a major employer. The unions overall lost and the result, a society with huge inequalities. Guess this is how you like it.

I was there in the 70s and remember it very well , you are talking absolute bollox , strikes were politically motivated, there was a definite anti union bias amongst the general public , and I am speaking as someone who supports the southern rail strikers and whose family were on strike for a year at wapping , you are patently talking rubbish .

 

[Triggaaar]

Jeremy Corbyn suggests earnings cap

So instead of working, do you just pick the cap up from social services and hold it out to earn money?

 

[Hastings gull]

Right back at you. Were you there , were you part of a union? I was and worked hard to make life better for all. Very few had that negative agenda that you seem to think existed. It is little use bringing the country down as we are all part of it. It is better to built for all not the few surely. The political agenda you refer to was no more than trying to ensure better working conditions. It had a political aspect of course as the government was both the law maker as well as a major employer. The unions overall lost and the result, a society with huge inequalities. Guess this is how you like it.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean -you, like others did your job - how would you have made life better for others? Whilst you are right in that most of the disputes at the time did probably end without too much disruption, there was certainly a significant hardcore amongst the union movement, whether you wish to recognise that or not, for whom industrial disputes were a weapon to be used against the government of the day. The mob rule that we saw was far more than trying to ensure better working conditions. Whilst there are inequalities, of course, the 1980s did also start a period when most families began to enjoy wealth, once employers were freed from irresponsible and extreme union action which was curbed by the law. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who introduced the laws, and am I right in saying that successive labour governments, mindful of what the disruption did for the Callaghan government, did not repeal them?

 

[ALBION28]

Not sure what this is supposed to mean -you, like others did your job - how would you have made life better for others? Whilst you are right in that most of the disputes at the time did probably end without too much disruption, there was certainly a significant hardcore amongst the union movement, whether you wish to recognise that or not, for whom industrial disputes were a weapon to be used against the government of the day. The mob rule that we saw was far more than trying to ensure better working conditions. Whilst there are inequalities, of course, the 1980s did also start a period when most families began to enjoy wealth, once employers were freed from irresponsible and extreme union action which was curbed by the law. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who introduced the laws, and am I right in saying that successive labour governments, mindful of what the disruption did for the Callaghan government, did not repeal them?

Agree with you in part but much of the health and safety was put in place at that time along with better working conditions though eroded since this helped many and disruption will happen if a situation becomes impossible, most was settled peacefully. Despite this some anti -union laws were I think valid,(secondary picketing and majority votes required) others not so. As for the wealth that started to happen in the mid nineteen eighties that was more due to northsea oil revenues, selling off what the consensus (privatise) built up (as Harold Macmillan put it ' selling the family silver') and the reduced war debt. Then big bang 1987, deregulation rolling back all that was put inplace to stop a financial melt down back in the 30's. Led us to meltdown in 2008. This for me is just the cycle of history rolling around (' Learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it.' ).As for Labour they just wanted power so followed a similar agenda to the Conservatives that was enough to get Murdoch on board . Without media support you cannot win an election here . I think Corbyn, just as Kinnock did, will discover that. Blair was, as Thatcher put it, her finest achievement ,her true victory, the consensus was gone. Once the positives have run through its great for one generation but poison to another. Now we are at the stage of a young generation with poorer prospects across the board. Will they ever own a house earn as much as the previous generation (allowing for inflation). So back to the original question of an earnings cap. Surely the debate is really about spreading the wealth and how it can be achieved. A cap , perhaps. Taxation, perhaps or maybe other ideas but can we keep going so more and more is owned by fewer and fewer?

 

[ALBION28]

I was there in the 70s and remember it very well , you are talking absolute bollox , strikes were politically motivated, there was a definite anti union bias amongst the general public , and I am speaking as someone who supports the southern rail strikers and whose family were on strike for a year at wapping , you are patently talking rubbish .

Sorry for delay in getting back had a virus , now that is equitable, gets us all. Can't say I had the same experience as you. Lots of support as many realised help was needed to better their lives . I attended numerous tribunals to discuss issues almost all settled amicably. As for anti general public don't you really mean anti media. I never experience the negativity you refer to. You do not answer the point about huge inequality. Do you think that is good or bad for society?