I dislike Mr Crow. I support unions but when union workers are fired or disciplined for absolutely reasonable things (drinking at work, taking the piss on sick leave), then they run the risk of losing public support. Crow I'm sure does some good for his members but the damage that the RMT strikes have done to the image of tube workers is not inconsiderable either.
I imagine that this business with AS and the remnants of the union is a political problem, he being worse than a crippled ass in obstinacy, does from the outside seem a no win situation- but then he liked them 😉
a fact or an opinion ?
I'm going for fact. Justify his "need" to be one of the wealthiest men in the country.
I dislike Mr Crow. I support unions but when union workers are fired or disciplined for absolutely reasonable things (drinking at work, taking the piss on sick leave), then they run the risk of losing public support. Crow I'm sure does some good for his members but the damage that the RMT strikes have done to the image of tube workers is not inconsiderable either.
I think one or two highly sensationalised and often grossly out of proportion stories in the right-wing press (Evening Standard for example) does not in any way reflect on the overall work done by the RMT to protect the interests of it's members, the workers who keep transport systems actually running. I'm sure there are thousands more cases of positive RMT involvement than the odd gutter press union-bashing stuff.
i understand Mr Crow is very popular with members of the union he has been elected to run. and I think that's all that matters in this case. as a Londoner who uses public transp[ort, I hold transport workers in very high regard indeed, and appreciate the vital job that they do to help keep London and ultimately our country running. So the issue of the 'image' of tube workers etc simply comes down to a matter of personal opinion. nothing more.
Plastic socialist- what do you mean ?
160,000 a year -- in london, can think of lots of jobs/positions that pay way more-- but as i said and you seem to want to sidestep, his members will be his judge'.
also when do you here people being employed and then asking for less money than the advertised pay/ --wouldn't set a good example
He's still in the top 1% of richest people in the country.
Of course his members would be the judge, what would be the point in commenting on that? I'm not dodging anything, if he's doing a good job for them he may represent good value (just like the boss of a bank might produce good returns to it's shareholders in return for a MASSIVE salary). Playing devils advocate a bit there; I'm no fan of the banks but the argument works both ways.
also when do you here people being employed and then asking for less money than the advertised pay/ --wouldn't set a good example
It would to communists
What mnike connor said in relation to scargill and Bob Crowe
Looks like Bob's going to have to dig a bit deeper into his pockets to stay in his house.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/poll/2012/jun/21/pay-to-stay-shapps-poll
just a load of bollix,another well thought proposal from mr.shapps.
Why not turn it on its head and make all them people with huge houses be evicted so that bigger families could move in, starting with Buck palace for the itinerants and their animals
Good luck to the bloke, he won't be earning it all his life, unlike the parasites in the unions, as i said before, the banks pay what they wish, if he like some decides to 'donate' some to other causes so be it-- why do you not like working people earning decent dollar ?
Not like their shareholders object, they can always vote him out if they do
That was a surprisingly easy cut and paste 😆
, they can always vote him out if they do
Eh? He's retired, has been for years. The membership, as far as I can tell from the published info, have absolutely no say in the matter.
what you saying stumpyjump-- ?/
makes less sense than alphabet spaghetti
Somebody up there is confusing wealth and income.
Somebody up there is confusing wealth and income.
confusing more than that, words and meanings, fact and fiction---
Those in favour of low taxes, a flexible labour market and minimised role of the state, seem curiously reluctant to move to DR Congo. I guess they're all hypocrites.
Somebody up there is confusing wealth and income.
I'd wager he's top 1% for both.
Those in favour of low taxes, a flexible labour market and minimised role of the state, seem curiously reluctant to move to DR Congo. I guess they're all hypocrites.
I don't see communists rushing for North Korea, China or Laos. Still a pretty weak argument when comparing to somebody who truly believes that we should only take/get what we need whilst being unthinkably rich.
top 1% for wealth-- you serious-- wager how much?
You don't reckon he's worth £700K?
Indeed...how much?
Despite earning £145k, having an expense account and living in a council house? I'm not rich but I'd have a fiver on it.
well he does not own his own [one of his] house[s] so what do you think?
well he does not own his own [one of his] house[s] so what do you think?
He earns about 6.5 times more than you. What do you think?
Those in favour of low taxes, a flexible labour market and minimised role of the state, seem curiously reluctant to move to DR Congo. I guess they're all hypocrites.
Nothing constructive to say then? 😀
Strangely I have a relative who lives in that tower block, who has bumped into Arthur a few times. I wouldn't characterise it as a yuppie haven.
Edukator - MemberSo Yorkshire miners have finally woken up to the fact he was Thatcher's greatest ally in her campaign to legislate against the abuse of union power and democratise the unions.
He has principles does Arthur, to the detriment of all that side with him.
Ah, that regularly trotted argument that it's all Arthur Scargill's fault that we no longer have a British coal industry. If only the miners hadn't gone on strike, or had been led by someone else, then today we would have a thriving coal ..... and it's all Scargill's that we haven't !
I have no doubt that some people genuinely believe that nonsense and it is for me an endless source of amazement that anyone can be so naive, so gullible, and so lacking in any ability to think beyond what is drip fed to them by the media.
Because even if they can't see the obvious absurdity of the argument that had the NUM not taken industrial against Tory government attacks and had they not been led by Scargill, then the British coal industry would have had a bright healthy future, then they only need to look at what happened when the alternative non-striking non-Scargill led strategy was used.
Nottinghamshire Miners were told that if they didn't strike, if they carried on working, if they turned their backs on their union, and if they trusted Thatcher, in other words everything which the NUM under Scargill wasn't doing, then they would have a very bright and healthy future.
So Notts miners did precisely that. They didn't strike, they carried on working, they turned their backs on their union and formed a non-striking "Union of Democratic Miners" (led by corrupt crooks btw) and trusted Thatcher, in other words, everything which the NUM under Scargill wasn't doing..........and they were totally shafted by the government. But only after they had served their purpose of course.
The coal industry in Notts was destroyed, even the much vaunted "Super Pits" which it was claimed had a guaranteed future, despite the fact that Notts Working Miners sided against Scargill and refused to strike.
What damaged the miners more than anything else was the refusal of the Labour Party leadership to support them, and the actions of the Notts Working Miners. [i]They[/i] were Thatcher's greatest ally Edukator.
And btw Thatcher passed anti-trade union legislation [u]before[/u] the NUM strike, not during or after, as you appear to suggest.
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
Scargill was, and is, a deluded and power-hungry fool. Any 'principles' he may have held were always secondary to his narcissism. King Arthur's castle and his enormous desk with an oil painting behind depicting him addressing the workers like something from Russia in the 1930's should have been enough for anyone to work out what he was about.
He was the archetypal rabble-rousing pied piper - he would stop at nothing to further his own ego and virtually destroyed the unions as a force for good in the process. By subverting the true cause of the unions (standing up for the little man in the face of employers' power) to his vision (trying to topple governments and seize power for himself), he has made the unions an easy target for employers and politicians ever since.
He is beneath contempt for the way he destroyed constructive debate and negotiation in order to satisfy his own ego. He was a gift to Thatcher and allowed her to go too far with privatisation (the railways for example) and leave a mess which rumbles on to this day with fiascos like the West Coast mainline.
dannyh
You missed out Scargill killing Bambi
Ah, that regularly trotted argument that it's all Arthur Scargill's fault that we no longer have a British coal industry. If only the miners hadn't gone on strike, or had been led by someone else, then today we would have a thriving coal ..... and it's all Scargill's that we haven't !I have no doubt that some people genuinely believe that nonsense and it is for me an endless source of amazement that anyone can be so naive, so gullible, and so lacking in any ability to think beyond what is drip fed to them by the media.
Because even if they can't see the obvious absurdity of the argument that had the NUM not taken industrial against Tory government attacks and had they not been led by Scargill, then the British coal industry would have had a bright healthy future
Indeed - nearly as Ridiculous as blaming Thatcher
[img] 
[/img]
Was Thatcher PM in the sixties? because thats when most of the mines and mining jobs went Ernie! Under a Labour government, as a nationalised industry!
[b]What damaged the miners more than anything else was the[/b] [s]refusal of the Labour Party leadership to support them, and the actions of the Notts Working Miners. They were Thatcher's greatest ally Edukator.[/s] [b]deliberate refusal of the NUM to hold a national strike ballot, and the murder of an innocent taxi driver for driving a miner to work [/b]
FTFY
Who's talking about "when most of the mines and mining jobs went" Z-11 ? Not me.
And thanks for your graph btw. It shows that when the Tories came to power in '79 there were almost a quarter of a million miners, and apparently none 15 years later.
FFS a simple look at wikipaedia would help before talking sh8t
"Scargill, along with Labour MP Tony Benn, was actively involved in the campaign to free Russel Shankland and Dean Hancock from prison. The pair had been convicted of the murder of David Wilkie, a taxi driver, by throwing a block of concrete from a bridge onto his car. [11] The first round of their victory was achieved in October 1985, when their life sentences for murder were reduced to eight years for [u]manslaughter[/u] on appeal. They were released from prison in November 1989.[12]
After the miners' strike, he was elected to lifetime presidency of the NUM by an overwhelming national majority, in a controversial election where some of the other candidates claimed that they were given very little time to prepare.
The media characterised the strike as "Scargill's strike" and most people believed that he had been looking for an excuse for industrial action since becoming union president. This portrayal may not be wholly accurate, as the strike began [u]when miners walked out in Yorkshire rather than when Scargill called for action[/u]. Scargill's decision to not hold a ballot of members was seen as an erosion of democracy within the union, [u]but the role of ballots in decision-making had been made very unclear after previous leader, Joe Gormley, had ignored two ballots over wage reforms, and his decisions had been upheld after appeals to court were made.[/u][citation needed]
On the appointment of Ian MacGregor as head of the NCB in 1983, Scargill stated, "The policies of this government are clear - to destroy the coal industry and the NUM".[13] During the strike itself, Scargill continued to claim that the government had a long-term strategy to destroy the industry by closing unprofitable pits, and that it listed pits it wanted to close each year. This was denied by the government. He stepped down from leadership of the NUM at the end of July 2002, to become the honorary president. He was succeeded by Ian Lavery.
Oh and as it says at the start of the Wiki piece Scargill worked for 19 years at the coalface from the age of 15.Not sure any posting on here have ever done that sort of dangerous,back breaking work.
And I am no Scargill or socialist fanbois but I'm sick of the entrenched blinkered views that keep popping up on here.
I have worked at Maltby, just googled it and saw this, the irony !
Were labour in power for the entire 60's - wow Macmillan really was right we never have had it so good 😕
For me Arthur Scargill was a principled and honest man. The state did every thing it could to villify, destabilise and destroy him. In the end they destroyed a whole industry to remove him, and what he represented.
We are paying for that now, many wrecked communities,imported fuels , an energy policy that is bankrupt.
There will be a nationwide party soon, dancing in the streets stylee, hope Arthur Scargill will be around to raise a glass or three.
I don't see communists rushing for North Korea, China or Laos. Still a pretty weak argument when comparing to somebody who truly believes that we should only take/get what we need whilst being unthinkably rich.
Yes, you've proved my point, which is that a wealthy socialist isn't necessarily a hypocrite, any more than a right winger who uses the NHS.
Oh, and have you been to Laos? I have, and I can assure you that it's communist in name only.
Yes, you've proved my point, which is that a wealthy socialist isn't necessarily a hypocrite, any more than a right winger who uses the NHS.
A wealthy communist is though.
He maybe worth every penny. He may do a great job for his members. He may even be a nice chap. He is not a communist.
A far more accurate comparison would be a staunch free market capitalist campaigning for re-nationalisation.
A wealthy communist is though.
He maybe worth every penny. He may do a great job for his members. He may even be a nice chap. He is not a communist.
A far more accurate comparison would be a staunch free market capitalist campaigning for re-nationalisation.
Could you explain why he is not a communist?
Do you know what, no offence but I can't be bothered to go through it again. Read the thread.
Perhaps you [i]need[/i] (clue) look up what communists believe.
Do you know what, no offence but I can't be bothered to go through it again. Read the thread.
Perhaps you need (clue) look up what communists believe.
I've read the thread and am aware of the various communist theories.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that all communists have the same beliefs and goals. How then, do you explain the China-Soviet split and Trotsky's exile?
You need to do some reading, then you can come back and substantiate your claim.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that all communists have the same beliefs and goals. How then, do you explain the China-Soviet split and Trotsky's exile?
WTF is the relevance of this?
I don't need to do any reading, we're talking the most basic communist theory. The thing which makes communists, communists. The COMMUNE part if you like.
You can sneeringly throw in irrelvant factiods to make yourself look [i]really[/i] clever all you like. Changes nothing (except your smug level).
Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order
Nice wiki for you (very first line). Do you really not see how being stinking rich conflicts with this? [i]Really?[/i]
Perhaps you need (clue) look up what communists believe.
We have. Can you explain why Bob Crow, isn't (in your opinion) a 'communist'?
So someone who rose to a position of power becomes addicted to the trappings of the position, especially the material and financial ones. Nothing new there, although the irony/hypocrisy is pretty obvious to all. It's a "fix" many find so hard to come down from irrespective of their background or political persuasion.
But hey, he is a man of principal, an honest hero of the minng community. So members are asked (allegedly) to cough up £20 a year. For such a man, that sounds a bargain after all he did for them during his years at the actual and metaphorical coal-face. And yes, he can use the flat to host the party that people seem to be anticipating with such relish. Where's the problem?
Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social orderNice wiki for you (very first line). Do you really not see how being stinking rich conflicts with this? Really?
Well if you're going to use that definition then being poor is as incompatible to being a communist as being "stinking rich".
WTF is the relevance of this?
I don't need to do any reading, we're talking the most basic communist theory. The thing which makes communists, communists. The COMMUNE part if you like.
As I said:
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that all communists have the same beliefs and goals.
Do you always have this much trouble with basic comprehension?
