Bob Crow – May a thousand wasps infest his scrotal area….

Ooh, that’s a face you could never tire of smacking with a cricket bat with 6″ nails driven through it and a bicycle chain…

*Enough now Elf. Medication time*

Coming nursey….

They are not abolishing the NHS, they are still desperate to hang onto the power to administer our cash, they just don’t want to do the logistical bit, you know, the bit that requires time and dedication and not just free holidays.

C’mon then Fred, Ernie – are you going to explain to me how King AEthelstan, founder of the first known Almshouse in York in nine hundred and something, was a Socialist? And how all the lords of the manor, princes and bishops who founded them were really secret lefties?

No, I’m watching the footie.

Love how the Liberals who introduced these policies are suddenly socialists.

Who said they were socialists then ? ………..I think you’ll find that no one did 💡

Presumably you missed this bit ?

I wouldn’t claim that George Bush was a socialist, but I would certainly claim that he implemented socialist principles towards the end of his tenure as US president …….. and in a very big way too.

……… there’s a clue in there.

As it happens, I have known members/supporters of the Liberal/LibDem Party (including in my family) to staunchly and proudly claim to be socialist.

So GEORGE BUSH implemented a system of central control of the means of production and distribution of wealth? Cripes! What else did I miss?

The Rapture?

Just for you Woppit, because you apparently missed what happened a couple of years back :

Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing “socialism”[/url]

Ernie,so what you have said,quite correctly, is that the Liberals were not socialist enough,so the unions started their own socialist party? How does that help the argument that the new reforms were socialist?

As Elfie points out, free healthcare, education and stuff like that, are socialist principles, which have nothing to do with free-market capitalism – in fact they are in complete contradiction to free-market capitalism

I’m quite sociable.

Thank you JY, I couldn’t be arsed,even by Ernies standards that was poor.Ernie,as least Fred is entertaining,if you are going to be snotty,at least try and remember what you have posted previously

Coming soon Ernie’s book. “The Black Death,making room for Socialism.”

As it happens, I have known members/supporters of the Liberal/LibDem Party (including in my family) to staunchly and proudly claim to be socialist

Really? So the liberal party of today is the same as the liberal party of the early 20th century?

I am going to the Higher markers meeting in Stirling today,if you like I could ask Larry Cheyne and Simon Wood on the motives for Liberal reforms,but you would have to trust my answer,research their political motivation behind their answers etc,and I don’t want to make you any more strident,at least not on a Friday.

Elfinsafety – Member
The Rapture?

😀

I hope you pay more attention to the subject of your marking when you are being paid duckman, than you do when you read posts on here.

I have already dealt with your false claim : “Love how the Liberals who introduced these policies are suddenly socialists” with this :

“Who said they were socialists then ? ………..I think you’ll find that no one did

Presumably you missed this bit ?

I wouldn’t claim that George Bush was a socialist, but I would certainly claim that he implemented socialist principles towards the end of his tenure as US president …….. and in a very big way too.

……… there’s a clue in there.”

Maybe now you’ve read it twice (you did read the first time didn’t you?) you can figure out what that means ?

As a very loosely connected side note, on which you’ve jumped with glee, I did indeed comment that I have known members of the Liberal/LibDem Party who consider themselves to be socialists (I could have just as easily commented about Liberal/LibDem Party members who consider themselves to be free-marketeers) Does that mean I am claiming that “the liberal party of today is the same as the liberal party of the early 20th century?” No of course it doesn’t (btw, a marking tip – Liberal Party is written with capital letters) For a start the Liberal Party of the early 20th century was arguably more radical and left-wing than today. But I don’t doubt for a minute that there were many in the Liberal Party then, who considered themselves to be socialists, specially those within the trade unions such as the N.U.M., and before the Labour Party was formed and became an electoral success.

And since you are obviously struggling with your political history duckman, and your understanding of terms such as “socialist principle”, let me give you the example of John Maynard Keynes, to help further your understanding of the point which is being made.

Very few people would argue that Keynesian economic policies don’t embrace the socialist principles of “government intervention” in supply and demand (go on, tell me that you do). And yet John Maynard Keynes was not a socialist, in fact he was quite dismissive of socialism. He was of course a member of the Liberal Party.

Have a nice day at your higher markers meeting in Stirling today duckman. Although if nothing else, I’m sure you’ve learnt a thing or two today 🙂

So, basically Ernie – you’re saying that “socialist principles” are a convenient tagline to hang onto anything that socialists wish to adopt as an “ideal” despite them fundamentally having nothing to do with Socialism whatsoever?

Again – Socialism is, by definition, the concept of economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively. nothing more, nothing less!

Welfare, free healthcare, education – all predated Socialism by hundreds if not thousands of years, primarily led by the Church, (not just Christian) it would be more accurate to title them “principles of humanity”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sacked-tube-driver-wins-job-fight-2279989.html

good on the union i say. there is not many left where the members are prepared to put what they believe to be justice behind self interest.

Meanwhile back on topic……

Sacked Tube driver wins job fight

Quote :

“One of the London Underground drivers whose sacking sparked a planned series of Tube strikes has won his claim of unfair dismissal.

Bakerloo Line driver Eamonn Lynch took his case to an employment tribunal, claiming his dismissal was based on his trade union activities.”

Although I don’t understand why the Independent refers to it as “wins job fight”, a tribunal’s ruling that someone was unfairly dismissed does not give them their job back.

And I don’t suppose that the manger(s) responsible for sacking someone unfairly because of their trade union activities will be disciplined by TFL. So even though it’s a good result in a tribunal which is nearly always stacked in the employers favour, it’s a fairly shallow victory.

EDIT : Due to the time spent reading the article I hadn’t seen ianv’s post. Although the point concerning that it’s a ‘shallow victory’ still stands.

As usual, they went nuclear with a strike without letting the existing process (tribunal) run it’s course:

disputes involving individuals should be dealt with through the mechanisms established for that purpose.
While that process takes its course, there remains no reason whatsoever for the RMT leadership to seek to disrupt Londoners by threatening strike action.

which seems a reasonable thing to say and do.

Whilst the tribunal has made a finding of unfair dismissal, it has also found that on August 9 2010 Mr Lynch breached an established and significant safety rule and was in part culpable or blameworthy for his actions.

So not quite as innocent of anything as painted by several people. I say the tribunal has shown it has value rather than the strike threat.

Elfinsafety – Member
The Rapture?

Outstanding. 😆 😆 😆

Good on the employee for winning his case which shows the value of a Union but also due process. Suspect he may have won as the employer did not follow appropriate disciplinary procudres, rather than he should not have been disciplined or sacked?

Thank you JY, I couldn’t be arsed,

i was agreeing with ernie not you he said socialist principles [ I emboldened it] not that it was done by a socialist government.
Principles can be shared by parties who dont agree with each other [ in a non nick clegg compromise way] and free health care education etc is a principle of socialism so his point would seem to be a valid one
You are arguing that the reforms were not done by a socialist government which is true but he never claimed this.

Superb Ernie,some of your best work there.I love how you are self important enough to describe my statement that the early 20th century reforms were not driven by the primary idea of improving peoples lives as “false claims.” Good use of bold type and quotation as well.Wrong as well,but at least you are consistent in that respect. JMK as a point,dear oh dear.

BTW; I don’t give a shit about WHO introduced the policies,I just did it to get you and Fred to bite, you did.(as usual)Off now,I will look forward to your reply,as your one-eyed view of history keeps me amused.

Suspect he may have won as the employer did not follow appropriate disciplinary procudres

That’s a pretty serious allegation, that a major employer such as TFL doesn’t follow correct procedures. Specially as we are told that they have the unions constantly on their backs. Someone should get disciplined for that, if that’s the case.

I love how you are self important

Well I work hard at it, so I’m glad it’s appreciated 8)

BTW; I don’t give a shit about WHO introduced the policies,I just did it to get you and Fred to bite

Yes of course.

Ernie – that’s not an allegation, just one possibility – hence the question mark.

that is a poor argument Duckman All of us who argue on here and are opinionated will from time to time be incorrect. I have more respect for those [very feww granted and you arenot alone in this respect] who admit this than those who make a poor claim to defend thier position.

Yes I took it as that Scamper……. you’re alleging that it’s possible, if you prefer. And why I said “if that’s the case”. Although for the reasons given, I suspect it’s highly unlikely.

Bakerloo Line driver Eamonn Lynch

Any relation, Ernest?

as least Fred is entertaining

nope, but this is a good likeness…

No, it’s a generic nom de guerre.

Tribunal finds first driver was sacked without justification.

Boris Johnson told to pull his figure out and sort a deal with the unions by MPs.

I doubt whether TFL are in any hurry to resolve the dispute. Letting it go ahead and portraying RMT as the villains probably suits them fine.

From last Friday :

London Underground said it would study the outcome of the employment tribunal judgment and “carefully consider our next steps”.

RMT seeks talks to avert tube strike after driver wins unfair dismissal case

Also from the same article :

“The tribunal has found in favour of the RMT, justice has been done and now we need to meet with the company to finalise arrangements that can enable us to move forwards as quickly as possible.”

An RMT spokesman said: “London Underground has no excuse not to reinstate these two drivers. It will ultimately be a decision for our executive, but if we can get these guys back to work we can move on with looking again at these dates for industrial action.”

It is clear that RMT are going out of their way to avert a strike.

But anyone who thinks TFL would have considered reinstating these guys without the threat of industrial action is deluding themselves.

.

And in an example of RMT’s commitment to safety, but reluctance to strike, from another article :

Meanwhile the RMT said it was planning to ballot Jubilee Line drivers for industrial action, short of a strike, over changes to safety procedures.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13306339

Unions silenced by chimpanzee tube driver

😀