F Me! She has done it! She's turned this round! We're going to be back to double digit poll leads for the Tories as early as this week! Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Brava! Brava!
Weirdly on the charts I'm looking at the pound sank from $1.14 to to $1.04 at 03:35 this morning. Luckily normal service was resumed and the pound bounced back to $1.14 by 03:45.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Yes, don't go to work - genius solution!
Who said don't go to work?
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
But how do you arrange to pay more to the staff? You can't.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
Sometimes workers have no choice. They suffer from strikes too - they don't get paid for the days they're om strike. You don't wake up in the morning and go "oh, I fancy a day off"
Going on strike is always a choice.
"We had no choice" is a pathetic whine and not credible.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone to Carolyn Bertozzi, Morton Meldal, and Barry Sharpless for their work on snipping molecules together, known as click chemistry. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63121338
The BBC does not (yet) say this but Barry Sharpless has now won two Nobel Prizes.
Shared 2 Nobel prizes for chemistry and joins a select group
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
And their workers don't "force" you to use their services either, you choose to do so.
They need to take responsibility for their decisions, you need to take responsibility for yours. That is a liberal free market.
What I am asking for is for them to take responsibility for their decisions: if they choose to punish innocent people by going on strike, they should compensate accordingly.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Yes, don't go to work - genius solution!
Who said don't go to work?
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
But how do you arrange to pay more to the staff? You can't.
You pay more for the service, if that is what is required.
If you can find an alternative, then you don't need to.
Your choice, but if you're making yourself dependant upon other people then you've chosen to do that and you are a party to their disputes, since you've made yourself reliant upon them. That was your choice. You need to take personal responsibility.
F Me! She has done it! She's turned this round! We're going to be back to double digit poll leads for the Tories as early as this week! Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Brava! Brava!
Bit early to be completely wrecked but each to their own.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
I'm not sure "anti-growth coalition" is going to have the cut-through she thinks it will. It kind of sounds like a reverse Viagra.
The Greenpeace protestors have probably helped it generate some cut through ironically.
Play clips of her talking about protestors blocking roads, linked to the video of the protestors, and I'm sure a few people will be nodding their heads and thinking "she has a point there".
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
Sometimes workers have no choice. They suffer from strikes too - they don't get paid for the days they're om strike. You don't wake up in the morning and go "oh, I fancy a day off"
Going on strike is always a choice.
"We had no choice" is a pathetic whine and not credible.
If people who use the strike affected service don’t like it then they can use another service…oh, wait, it’s a monopoly. They can’t. Same logic applies to the poor sods who work for monopolies. How would you change your intolerable working conditions if you had no alternative employer? Ask managers nicely? Suck up to the boss a bit more? Where your employer has a monopoly on your field of work you have no choice. . Your argument seems to suggest that public servants are just servants on a very literal sense.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then. Your choice.
If they don't want to offer the service, they can quit, or they can go on strike, that is their choice.
If you want to use their service, you can pay whatever it takes to keep the people providing it to you content and happy, or you can find an alternative, that is your choice.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Yes, don't go to work - genius solution!
Who said don't go to work?
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
But how do you arrange to pay more to the staff? You can't.
You pay more for the service, if that is what is required.
If you can find an alternative, then you don't need to.
Your choice, but if you're making yourself dependant upon other people then you've chosen to do that and you are a party to their disputes, since you've made yourself reliant upon them. That was your choice. You need to take personal responsibility.
But you can't choose to pay more for the service - the ticket price is what it is.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Yes, don't go to work - genius solution!
Who said don't go to work?
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
But how do you arrange to pay more to the staff? You can't.
You pressure management to pay more by using alternative services. Support your fellow ordinary working man and woman.
Aaron Bell MP @AaronBell4NUL · 25s Great speech from the PM!
A global economic crisis is completely the wrong time to be raising taxes on businesses that create wealth. Liz’s growth focused approach will mean British businesses have the freedom to grow and invest – creating jobs and boosting prosperity for all. Image
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
Sometimes workers have no choice. They suffer from strikes too - they don't get paid for the days they're om strike. You don't wake up in the morning and go "oh, I fancy a day off"
Going on strike is always a choice.
"We had no choice" is a pathetic whine and not credible.
If people who use the strike affected service don’t like it then they can use another service…oh, wait, it’s a monopoly. They can’t. Same logic applies to the poor sods who work for monopolies. How would you change your intolerable working conditions if you had no alternative employer? Ask managers nicely? Suck up to the boss a bit more? Where your employer has a monopoly on your field of work you have no choice. . Your argument seems to suggest that public servants are just servants on a very literal sense.
Quit. Get a different job.
You probably won't get paif £50k for anything nearly as cushy, but there it is.
"Intolerable working conditions" for train drivers on £50k+ is just another non-credible whinge.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Yes, don't go to work - genius solution!
Who said don't go to work?
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
But how do you arrange to pay more to the staff? You can't.
You pay more for the service, if that is what is required.
If you can find an alternative, then you don't need to.
Your choice, but if you're making yourself dependant upon other people then you've chosen to do that and you are a party to their disputes, since you've made yourself reliant upon them. That was your choice. You need to take personal responsibility.
But you can't choose to pay more for the service - the ticket price is what it is.
In the long run you absolutely can. Write to the company and say I'd rather pay a higher ticket price if I get a more reliable service, have you done that? Or find an alternative transport method. Stop being dependant upon that service. Your choice.
Why don't you take the actions available to you to find an alternative? If you can't be bothered, that's your choice too.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
Sometimes workers have no choice. They suffer from strikes too - they don't get paid for the days they're om strike. You don't wake up in the morning and go "oh, I fancy a day off"
Going on strike is always a choice.
"We had no choice" is a pathetic whine and not credible.
If people who use the strike affected service don’t like it then they can use another service…oh, wait, it’s a monopoly. They can’t. Same logic applies to the poor sods who work for monopolies. How would you change your intolerable working conditions if you had no alternative employer? Ask managers nicely? Suck up to the boss a bit more? Where your employer has a monopoly on your field of work you have no choice. . Your argument seems to suggest that public servants are just servants on a very literal sense.
Quit. Get a different job.
You probably won't get paif £50k for anything nearly as cushy, but there it is.
"Intolerable working conditions" for train drivers on £50k+ is just another non-credible whinge.
You don't get many people committing suicide very messily all over your office window, I bet.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then. Your choice.
If they don't want to offer the service, they can quit, or they can go on strike, that is their choice.
If you want to use their service, you can pay whatever it takes to keep the people providing it to you content and happy, or you can find an alternative, that is your choice.
We all have choices.
I do pay for it, £500 a month to go to work on the train. Are you telling me that the train companies can’t afford to pay their staff a decent wage out of that and that the millions of others who pay similar?
Also do you think that literally everyone has the choice to drive to work?
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Yes, don't go to work - genius solution!
Who said don't go to work?
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
But how do you arrange to pay more to the staff? You can't.
You pressure management to pay more by using alternative services. Support your fellow ordinary working man and woman.
What alternative?
The people that the unions choose to punish by going on strike have no influence on management.
Wish list + the pretence that regulation and legislation for a complex, globally reaching, industrial society and its ancillary services is simple. Tory members seem to believe such simplicities. Not great. Junk.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
They *are* quitting. Already. In their thousands. And there are no replacements. That's the problem.
You can only use the threat of restrictions on right to strike if you have an ample supply of replacements. There are no doctors you could call on you haven't already recruited. Or nurses. As for teachers, by closing 30% of training courses they're going to absolutely squeeze supply. But that's not even as bad as it sounds because they can't afford to pay their wages anyway.
It's an empty threat. What would she do if they ignored her? Lock them up? Sack them? Sue them?
I would add that actually I don't think education unions are particularly militant. I worked in one school where the head had actually threatened several members of staff with physical violence and they needed a lot of prodding from me to intervene. There were two national strikes in all my years in teaching despite appalling and frequently illegal actions to change terms and conditions and chronic mismanagement and abuse by those in authority. We didn't strike during covid, for example, although we probably should have done given several things the DfE demanded of us were breaches not only of our contracts and covid regulations but of ordinary health and safety law.
That's partly because most teachers don't want to strike. They care about children, unlike say, the DfE or the Daily Mail, and they don't want to disrupt their education. There's actually one Union, the Voice, which has that as its fundamental principle.
But you have to have the right to withdraw your labour to protest at misguided or especially illegal actions by the bosses. That's a fundamental point of workplace law. If she restricts it, the NHS and the education system will certainly both implode.
There's one sentence in my comment which you didn't address, perhaps because you don't have an answer for it:
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
If you're not a party to the dispute, you're not directly affected by the dispute.
If you're a customer of the firm whose staff are on strike etc, then you are a party to the dispute.
Not in the sense that you have any way of resolving it.
Of course you do, just not directly, but everything's connected.
If eg your a customer on a train then you could end up paying more in train fees, in order to allow the train firm to pay their staff more, which allows the dispute to be resolved. Or you could choose to take your business elsewhere, drive instead of getting the train, which means that the train firm has less revenue and may need to make redundancies instead.
Everything is connected. If you don't want to be a party to a dispute, don't get involved. Don't use that business or service, if you do, then you're a party whether you want to be or not.
Yes, don't go to work - genius solution!
Who said don't go to work?
Go to work, but don't rely upon the services of those who are on strike to do so. If you normally get a train then drive instead and so on. If you can't, then be prepared to pay more to the staff since you must value them so highly that you're so dependant upon them.
But how do you arrange to pay more to the staff? You can't.
You pay more for the service, if that is what is required.
If you can find an alternative, then you don't need to.
Your choice, but if you're making yourself dependant upon other people then you've chosen to do that and you are a party to their disputes, since you've made yourself reliant upon them. That was your choice. You need to take personal responsibility.
But you can't choose to pay more for the service - the ticket price is what it is.
In the long run you absolutely can. Write to the company and say I'd rather pay a higher ticket price if I get a more reliable service, have you done that? Or find an alternative transport method. Stop being dependant upon that service. Your choice.
Why don't you take the actions available to you to find an alternative? If you can't be bothered, that's your choice too.
Aaron Bell MP @AaronBell4NUL · 25s Great speech from the PM!
A global economic crisis is completely the wrong time to be raising taxes on businesses that create wealth. Liz’s growth focused approach will mean British businesses have the freedom to grow and invest – creating jobs and boosting prosperity for all. Image
And in 1 tweet I lose all respect for Aaron. As I said before if your desired approach hasn't worked the last 12 times you've tried (low taxes) why is it going to work the 13th time..
Awful, dull, content lacking series of platitudes, few of which seem actually deliverable. I genuinely think she's so deluded she thinks she probably nailed it though.
What i find particularly frustrating is that she's rubbishing the efforts of 12 years of Tory governments and going Labour's work for them. Boris and May were slightly guilty of this but did it in a more nuanced way. And had time on their side.
Once the Tories are eviscerated in late 2024, the Left are now going to run the show for 2 decades if not forever. It's so depressing for those of us who believe in free markets and personal freedom.
Then again, i can't really see any benefit of getting shut of her now. Why would Rishi or AN Other want to take it on now as the car veers over the cliff??
It seems as if the logistical shortages west of the Dneiper river, combined with a slighly bizarre lack of radio contact between Russian forces, is causing the abandonment of position after position with ever less actual fighting. Within days we are likely to see a more fundamental collapse and much larger scale surrenders.
Which will, of course, be the moment of maximum danger. It is quite clear that Putin's recent gambles have failed. The entire province of Kharkiv will soon be back in Ukranian hands yet this is supposed to be mother Russia. The shambles of the mobilisation has simply shown another level of Russian incompetence and increasing domestic resistance. Putin is trapped, humiliated and desperate. If he continues in power (and domestic terror is one of his skills) I fear that the use of nuclear weapons becomes probable. Only an internal coup reduces the risk to moderate. This should be getting far more attention than it is. I think people still think that at some point we are going to have a bloody stalemate and time. We are not.
The lack of radio contact is probably a function of crap equipment - the *premium* Russian system requires using the local cellular network and many units were using unencrypted commercial systems - and jamming/spoofing by the Ukrainians. With er…. assistance from friends.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
Aaron Bell MP @AaronBell4NUL · 25s Great speech from the PM!
A global economic crisis is completely the wrong time to be raising taxes on businesses that create wealth. Liz’s growth focused approach will mean British businesses have the freedom to grow and invest – creating jobs and boosting prosperity for all. Image
And in 1 tweet I lose all respect for Aaron. As I said before if your desired approach hasn't worked the last 12 times you've tried (low taxes) why is it going to work the 13th time..
The tax burden is at a record high, and that certainly hasn't worked.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
Sometimes workers have no choice. They suffer from strikes too - they don't get paid for the days they're om strike. You don't wake up in the morning and go "oh, I fancy a day off"
Going on strike is always a choice.
"We had no choice" is a pathetic whine and not credible.
If people who use the strike affected service don’t like it then they can use another service…oh, wait, it’s a monopoly. They can’t. Same logic applies to the poor sods who work for monopolies. How would you change your intolerable working conditions if you had no alternative employer? Ask managers nicely? Suck up to the boss a bit more? Where your employer has a monopoly on your field of work you have no choice. . Your argument seems to suggest that public servants are just servants on a very literal sense.
Quit. Get a different job.
You probably won't get paif £50k for anything nearly as cushy, but there it is.
"Intolerable working conditions" for train drivers on £50k+ is just another non-credible whinge.
You don't get many people committing suicide very messily all over your office window, I bet.
Sorry that argument is a nonsense. It's more than most of the army, police, nurses, firemen who all have to deal with traumatic situations on a daily basis.
Aaron Bell MP @AaronBell4NUL · 25s Great speech from the PM!
A global economic crisis is completely the wrong time to be raising taxes on businesses that create wealth. Liz’s growth focused approach will mean British businesses have the freedom to grow and invest – creating jobs and boosting prosperity for all. Image
And in 1 tweet I lose all respect for Aaron. As I said before if your desired approach hasn't worked the last 12 times you've tried (low taxes) why is it going to work the 13th time..
TBF he will just have cut and paste from the CCHQ things to tweet..
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
1: They won't listen 2-5: Impossible for many people 6: Why should an innocent person be forced to do that by unions choosing to strike?
Wish list + the pretence that regulation and legislation for a complex, globally reaching, industrial society and its ancillary services is simple. Tory members seem to believe such simplicities. Not great. Junk.
It's all "Red Tape". Can be "swept away" and replaced by "common sense".
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
7. Put pressure on the government to make the company resolve the dispute. 8. Get your political party (if in opposition) to do (7).
Honestly. All the economic, industrial and employment predictions we make now are about to be rendered utterly obsolete by AI (setting aside wars, bombs, and climate). It's like people arguing about stables, saddlery and the price of horseshoes in the 1880s, only more so
I see Nouriel Roubini agrees with me:
"AI/ML/Robotics/Automation will not only replace routine jobs but also cognitive & creative ones as argued in my new book Megathreats. Eventually most jobs and labor income are at threat. AI also increases inequality as there are stark winners & losers."
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
So you'd repeal the more than century old golden formula on protecting unions from tortious claims arising from disputes "made in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute", currently contained in section 219 Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but originally enacted by Disraeli's Tory government in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. In doing so, do you expect to avoid the long period of industrial unrest that followed the last attempt to abolish this rule, Heath's, via the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or Thatcher's limiting it to those unions who have passed a vote permitting it? Bold.
Something needs to be done about these vindictive unions. If they choose to strike, damn right they should compensate the innocent people they punish thereby.
"They" don't choose to strike. Their members, ordinary decent working people, who themselves are the victims of vindictive employers, choose to strike. The unions are merely the vehicles through which their members lodge their protests. The companies who force them to strike should be paying. Where do you think the unions would find the money to pay these claims? Through their already downtrodden members, who you seem to think lower than the people they normally serve without complaint, for some reason.
The companies don't "force" them to strike. They choose to strike.
Sometimes workers have no choice. They suffer from strikes too - they don't get paid for the days they're om strike. You don't wake up in the morning and go "oh, I fancy a day off"
Going on strike is always a choice.
"We had no choice" is a pathetic whine and not credible.
If people who use the strike affected service don’t like it then they can use another service…oh, wait, it’s a monopoly. They can’t. Same logic applies to the poor sods who work for monopolies. How would you change your intolerable working conditions if you had no alternative employer? Ask managers nicely? Suck up to the boss a bit more? Where your employer has a monopoly on your field of work you have no choice. . Your argument seems to suggest that public servants are just servants on a very literal sense.
Quit. Get a different job.
You probably won't get paif £50k for anything nearly as cushy, but there it is.
"Intolerable working conditions" for train drivers on £50k+ is just another non-credible whinge.
You don't get many people committing suicide very messily all over your office window, I bet.
Sorry that argument is a nonsense. It's more than most of the army, police, nurses, firemen who all have to deal with traumatic situations on a daily basis.
It's an element. And the emergency services are trained for that. Drivers aren't, not so much.
Honestly. All the economic, industrial and employment predictions we make now are about to be rendered utterly obsolete by AI (setting aside ars, bombs, and climate). It's like people arguing about stables, saddlery and the price of horseshoes in the 1880s, only more so
I see Nouriel Roubini agrees with me:
"AI/ML/Robotics/Automation will not only replace routine jobs but also cognitive & creative ones as argued in my new book Megathreats. Eventually most jobs and labor income are at threat. AI also increases inequality as there are stark winners & losers."
Aaron Bell MP @AaronBell4NUL · 25s Great speech from the PM!
A global economic crisis is completely the wrong time to be raising taxes on businesses that create wealth. Liz’s growth focused approach will mean British businesses have the freedom to grow and invest – creating jobs and boosting prosperity for all. Image
And in 1 tweet I lose all respect for Aaron. As I said before if your desired approach hasn't worked the last 12 times you've tried (low taxes) why is it going to work the 13th time..
Low taxes has worked when its been tried.
By 2019 we had a fairly balanced budget having grown the economy, got full employment and cleared the deficit that Brown bequeathed thanks in part to lower corporation taxes and a better (but still far from perfect) tax and benefit system that ensured work pays more than benefits better than under Tax Credits.
If people keep more of their own money, they can invest and save and develop the economy.
At the end of the day Liz is at the head of a minority government. She can do nothing that the various factions of swirling Con MPs won't allow her to do. Or are they all part of the Anti-Growth Coalition to be expelled? It would at least make her minority status official and then let her go to the country against the splitters.
'Get Growth Done!'
She can't be that stupid can she - and I bow to no-one in the low bar I set for Ms Truss!
"Richard Adams Liz Truss was wrong when she claimed in her conference speech that she was the first prime minister to have gone to a comprehensive school. Gordon Brown went to a comprehensive secondary school (Kirkcaldy High School), while Theresa May’s school was converted in a comprehensive while she was a pupil there - Holton Park Girls’ Grammar School, in Oxfordshire, became Wheatley Park Comprehensive School in 1971, two years after May enrolled. The education secretary at the time was Margaret Thatcher."
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
1: They won't listen 2-5: Impossible for many people 6: Why should an innocent person be forced to do that by unions choosing to strike?
You don't seem to have grasped the fact that life is about reaching equilibria between competing interests. The trainco wants its staff to work for free, the customers want free transport, the staff want £500,000 a day and free cocaine. If you deprive one party of the right to compete against the others that is a serious injustice.
I think the 45p tax thing had to go, but tbh the Conservatives best chance to save some seats would be to show a bit of loyalty from now till the next GE. I won';t be voting for them but Bravermann is right, Gove is on a complete power trip.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
7. Put pressure on the government to make the company resolve the dispute. 8. Get your political party (if in opposition) to do (7).
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
1: They won't listen 2-5: Impossible for many people 6: Why should an innocent person be forced to do that by unions choosing to strike?
It is a dispute between employers and unions. Why not phrase it as employers choosing a strike? If employers did as unions wanted there would be no strike, just as if unions did what employers wanted there would be no strike.
It is nearly always a failure of both parties, not just one.
Ramsay Mac? Wasn't he at Free Kirk and then Kirk of Scotland schools?
It says here
Ramsay MacDonald received an elementary education at the Free Church of Scotland school in Lossiemouth from 1872 to 1875, and then at Drainie parish school. He left school at the end of the summer term in 1881, at the age of 15, and began work on a nearby farm. In December 1881, he was appointed a pupil teacher at Drainie parish school.
On cxhecking the parish school was probably funded by the state anyway (bit like an English free school) by that time, so it counts.
Gordon Brown was also at Kirkcaldy High School.
I think (though not 100% sure) it was a grammar at the time.
But the "first comprehensive school PM" thing is a bit deliberately misleading as it implies all PMs have been to Eton and Winchester, whereas it's relatively recent that PMs are of an age to have grown up with a widespread comprehensive system. There have been a lot of PMs witha privileged background, of course, but a fair number of PMs have been state educated and, as mentioned, Lloyd-George and MacDonald were non-selective schools too.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
1: They won't listen 2-5: Impossible for many people 6: Why should an innocent person be forced to do that by unions choosing to strike?
2 to 5 are not impossible.
6: They're not "innocent". If you're using that workers services then you are a party to the dispute, stop using their services if you want to be unaffected by the strike.
You seem to think you can rely upon workers without paying them what they want to be paid. That's not a free market and its not liberal, or appropriate.
If you want to rely upon workers then pay them the going rate to get them into work. If you don't want to, then don't rely upon them.
If you are using someone's services, why do you think you are "innocent" of the dispute. Stop using the service and then you'll be, but if you're using the service you need to pay for it.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
7. Put pressure on the government to make the company resolve the dispute. 8. Get your political party (if in opposition) to do (7).
Those take years to have any impact.
Who hands out contracts to TOCs? The government (depnding on which bit of the UK). Especially if contracts are up for renewal ...
Honestly. All the economic, industrial and employment predictions we make now are about to be rendered utterly obsolete by AI (setting aside ars, bombs, and climate). It's like people arguing about stables, saddlery and the price of horseshoes in the 1880s, only more so
I see Nouriel Roubini agrees with me:
"AI/ML/Robotics/Automation will not only replace routine jobs but also cognitive & creative ones as argued in my new book Megathreats. Eventually most jobs and labor income are at threat. AI also increases inequality as there are stark winners & losers."
I don't know what they're doing differently here in the South of France but the energy prices haven't gone up and petrol is still 1.58 euros a litre....
.....and the sun is shining the cafes are busy the restaurants are heaving and everyone seems happy ........
............. I wonder if they're tuning in to UK TV?
France has nuclear energy, how do you spend so much time there and bang on about it so much and not know that?
The petrol price seems about the same, its back into the 1.50s here too. The exchange rate isn't the same, but I think France has lower fuel duty.
Oil prices disconnected (mostly) from the natural gas price long ago.
In France, EDF was 100% nationalised and the government directed them not to change energy prices. This means that debt is piling up in EDF - which has to buy natural gas on the open market. The debt is effectively government debt…
They are buying a lot of electricity from the U.K. and other countries, because a number of the nuke plants are in deep maintenance.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
1: They won't listen 2-5: Impossible for many people 6: Why should an innocent person be forced to do that by unions choosing to strike?
It is a dispute between employers and unions. Why not phrase it as employers choosing a strike? If employers did as unions wanted there would be no strike, just as if unions did what employers wanted there would be no strike.
It is nearly always a failure of both parties, not just one.
I don't phrase it as employers choosing a strike, because they aren't the ones choosing to strike, the unions are...
Awful, dull, content lacking series of platitudes, few of which seem actually deliverable. I genuinely think she's so deluded she thinks she probably nailed it though.
What i find particularly frustrating is that she's rubbishing the efforts of 12 years of Tory governments and going Labour's work for them. Boris and May were slightly guilty of this but did it in a more nuanced way. And had time on their side.
Once the Tories are eviscerated in late 2024, the Left are now going to run the show for 2 decades if not forever. It's so depressing for those of us who believe in free markets and personal freedom.
Then again, i can't really see any benefit of getting shut of her now. Why would Rishi or AN Other want to take it on now as the car veers over the cliff??
I believe this is a welcome back Bob?
What I find confusing is that a small state and low tax message is hardly controversial, so why has she provoked such a revolt?
The only conclusion I can draw is that Britain's fiscal position is incredibly precarious and her initial promise of borrowing would have pushed us over the edge. What state will the country be in by the time of the next GE?
Machines once took over the hard or repetitive jobs we all hated. From harvesting, to laundry, to weaving,
Now the machines are about to take over all the jobs we LIKE
I don't think we should be worried about that so much as the threat of nuclear war, Covid, Aliens and the Woke - all are far more serious. Have you considered posting about one of those deeply concerning issues? I bet you'd get some engagement.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
1: They won't listen 2-5: Impossible for many people 6: Why should an innocent person be forced to do that by unions choosing to strike?
2 to 5 are not impossible.
6: They're not "innocent". If you're using that workers services then you are a party to the dispute, stop using their services if you want to be unaffected by the strike.
You seem to think you can rely upon workers without paying them what they want to be paid. That's not a free market and its not liberal, or appropriate.
If you want to rely upon workers then pay them the going rate to get them into work. If you don't want to, then don't rely upon them.
If you are using someone's services, why do you think you are "innocent" of the dispute. Stop using the service and then you'll be, but if you're using the service you need to pay for it.
And there are many people who are perfectly happy to pay to use the service, when the unions can be bothered to provide it. But the ordinary people who just want to travel to work, or to see family, for who the train may be the only option - and I'll keep using the word innocent, because they are - have zero influence on the dispute.
In an ideal world, they would have such influence, but this is not that world.
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then. Your choice.
If they don't want to offer the service, they can quit, or they can go on strike, that is their choice.
If you want to use their service, you can pay whatever it takes to keep the people providing it to you content and happy, or you can find an alternative, that is your choice.
We all have choices.
I do pay for it, £500 a month to go to work on the train. Are you telling me that the train companies can’t afford to pay their staff a decent wage out of that and that the millions of others who pay similar?
Also do you think that literally everyone has the choice to drive to work?
Yes I am saying that, considering that train fares are heavily subsidies by the taxpayer, that £500 is not enough quite frankly. As far as I'm concerned we should abolish taxpayer subsidies for trains, why should one person's transport be taxed in order to subsidise somebody else's personal choice? But that's a different matter.
And yes, everyone has the choice to drive to work, or get a taxi, or alternatives like quitting which Driver so kindly suggested as the alternative for train workers. If quitting is an appropriate option for train workers, its an appropriate option for train customers too, who are not "innocent" of any train dispute.
I hope Truss enjoyed her party speech because it will be the last one she gives .
Party leaders having a hard time of it always get a sympathetic and supportive response from party members - the applause during her speech reminded me of Clegg’s conference speeches during the coalition
That amazing libertarian ideal of forcing people to work even if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. Which I assume will be done with all the force of the state - rules around claiming benefits, police at picket lines, and the choice between serfdom or starving.
We need to retire the idea that Truss is a libertarian - her economics are not about increasing freedom, it's about capital accumulating with the already rich. There is nothing freeing about being unable to collectively bargain, there is nothing emancipatory about claiming the only working unit is the individual.
Not forcing them to work at all - they can quit.
But why should ordinary members of the public - who aren't party to the wage dispute and can't do anything to resolve it - be the ones to be punished?
In an ideal world, curbs on strikes wouldn't be necessary. But in an ideal world, militant unions wouldn't take it out on people who can't do anything about it.
We already have some of the most restrictive union laws in the west. How much further would you go?
I would require unions who choose to strike to pay compensation to the innocent people they affect by doing so.
How about the managers who create the conditions for the strike?
Not saying it's always management's fault, but you'd be essentially making it impossible for e.g. rail strikes etc to happen, which would enable management to do whatever the hell they wanted.
(And, perhaps bizarrely, I say this as a by choice non-union member in a reasonably unionised profession - quick google says 47%, but that seems low to me anecdotally among colleagues)
The managers aren't the ones choosing to go on strike, though, are they?
No, its their employees, who the managers force into this position.
How does an individual whose only marketable skill is, say, laying railway tracks express his opposition to the actions of management save through striking? Move to to a rival provider to Network Rail? Ditto nurses and firemen. Should they just find another job?
There's no "force" about it. Striking is a pure choice by the workers/unions.
So is choosing to use their service.
In a free society everyone is free to make their own choices. If you want to use other people's labour, even when they don't want to provide it, then there's a word for that.
Why should you get to choose to use their service, or not, but they don't get to choose whether to offer it, or not?
Because for many people, their service is irreplaceable. And as I said right at the beginning, if they don't want to offer the service, they can quit.
Then pay for it then.
How???
Plenty of options. If we're talking about trains for example, then just off the top of my head.
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices. 2: Work from home instead and don't use the train. 3: Drive instead and don't use the train. 4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train. 5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train. 6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
1: They won't listen 2-5: Impossible for many people 6: Why should an innocent person be forced to do that by unions choosing to strike?
...the staff want £500,000 a day and free cocaine...
Machines once took over the hard or repetitive jobs we all hated. From harvesting, to laundry, to weaving,
Now the machines are about to take over all the jobs we LIKE
Some jobs they will take over, most they will complement. Even in situations at the most extreme like producing graphic art, the jobs around them will become about selecting the best art produced, iterating the keywords used to refine the art, ensuring consistency between art styles across the brand. This will all result in those jobs being way, way more productive and the knock-on higher salaries.
Plus there are some things the AI can't do. Human interaction, where the uncanny Valley discomforts people. Management and oversight. People development. These jobs will become more productive and better paid due to the greater wealth generated per worker on the automation-assisted ones.
@RoryStewartUK A much more confident speech than many were expecting. She has drawn clear political lines on EU, immigration, tax and defence and defined her opponents. Whatever we think of content, you can see clearly here why Liz Truss won over Conservative party members.
Comments
Weirdly on the charts I'm looking at the pound sank from $1.14 to to $1.04 at 03:35 this morning. Luckily normal service was resumed and the pound bounced back to $1.14 by 03:45.
"We had no choice" is a pathetic whine and not credible.
Are you saying there are two?! F Scott Fitzgerald? Don't think he got the Nobel, might have got an Oscar
Churchill, but then, an Oscar for what? Obama? No Oscar
Samuel Beckett?
I shall now go and google
(Good quiz question, btw!)
If you can find an alternative, then you don't need to.
Your choice, but if you're making yourself dependant upon other people then you've chosen to do that and you are a party to their disputes, since you've made yourself reliant upon them. That was your choice. You need to take personal responsibility.
Well I never
Play clips of her talking about protestors blocking roads, linked to the video of the protestors, and I'm sure a few people will be nodding their heads and thinking "she has a point there".
Are we sure?
Dire beyond words.
Has there ever been a worse leader's speech?
you have no choice. . Your argument seems to suggest that public servants are just servants on a very literal sense.
If they don't want to offer the service, they can quit, or they can go on strike, that is their choice.
If you want to use their service, you can pay whatever it takes to keep the people providing it to you content and happy, or you can find an alternative, that is your choice.
We all have choices.
@AaronBell4NUL
·
25s
Great speech from the PM!
A global economic crisis is completely the wrong time to be raising taxes on businesses that create wealth. Liz’s growth focused approach will mean British businesses have the freedom to grow and invest – creating jobs and boosting prosperity for all.
Image
You probably won't get paif £50k for anything nearly as cushy, but there it is.
"Intolerable working conditions" for train drivers on £50k+ is just another non-credible whinge.
Why don't you take the actions available to you to find an alternative? If you can't be bothered, that's your choice too.
Green peace did her no harm and even Burley of Sky said she dealt with it well
I would imagine she is safe until Spring but if the polls remain as negative she will be removed
Also do you think that literally everyone has the choice to drive to work?
The people that the unions choose to punish by going on strike have no influence on management.
What i find particularly frustrating is that she's rubbishing the efforts of 12 years of Tory governments and going Labour's work for them. Boris and May were slightly guilty of this but did it in a more nuanced way. And had time on their side.
Once the Tories are eviscerated in late 2024, the Left are now going to run the show for 2 decades if not forever. It's so depressing for those of us who believe in free markets and personal freedom.
Then again, i can't really see any benefit of getting shut of her now. Why would Rishi or AN Other want to take it on now as the car veers over the cliff??
1: Put pressure on the train company to resolve the dispute, saying you'll be happy to pay higher ticket prices.
2: Work from home instead and don't use the train.
3: Drive instead and don't use the train.
4: Get a taxi instead and don't use the train.
5: Go somewhere else instead so you don't need the train.
6: Quit yourself, so you don't use the train.
You have plenty of options before you. You want their only option to be quit, well why don't you quit? Or find an alternative that is available to you?
It's more than most of the army, police, nurses, firemen who all have to deal with traumatic situations on a daily basis.
2-5: Impossible for many people
6: Why should an innocent person be forced to do that by unions choosing to strike?
8. Get your political party (if in opposition) to do (7).
(Fascinating thread)
"10 clever websites powered by AI that will make your jaw drop (Don't miss them):"
https://twitter.com/GrwthPartner/status/1577286175794028548?s=20&t=dJXxPzgDFpVkkSJhLhHOnA
Honestly. All the economic, industrial and employment predictions we make now are about to be rendered utterly obsolete by AI (setting aside wars, bombs, and climate). It's like people arguing about stables, saddlery and the price of horseshoes in the 1880s, only more so
I see Nouriel Roubini agrees with me:
"AI/ML/Robotics/Automation will not only replace routine jobs but also cognitive & creative ones as argued in my new book Megathreats. Eventually most jobs and labor income are at threat. AI also increases inequality as there are stark winners & losers."
https://twitter.com/Nouriel/status/1577611553708208129?s=20&t=dJXxPzgDFpVkkSJhLhHOnA
By 2019 we had a fairly balanced budget having grown the economy, got full employment and cleared the deficit that Brown bequeathed thanks in part to lower corporation taxes and a better (but still far from perfect) tax and benefit system that ensured work pays more than benefits better than under Tax Credits.
If people keep more of their own money, they can invest and save and develop the economy.
'Get Growth Done!'
She can't be that stupid can she - and I bow to no-one in the low bar I set for Ms Truss!
"Richard Adams
Liz Truss was wrong when she claimed in her conference speech that she was the first prime minister to have gone to a comprehensive school. Gordon Brown went to a comprehensive secondary school (Kirkcaldy High School), while Theresa May’s school was converted in a comprehensive while she was a pupil there - Holton Park Girls’ Grammar School, in Oxfordshire, became Wheatley Park Comprehensive School in 1971, two years after May enrolled. The education secretary at the time was Margaret Thatcher."
I won';t be voting for them but Bravermann is right, Gove is on a complete power trip.
It is nearly always a failure of both parties, not just one.
But the "first comprehensive school PM" thing is a bit deliberately misleading as it implies all PMs have been to Eton and Winchester, whereas it's relatively recent that PMs are of an age to have grown up with a widespread comprehensive system. There have been a lot of PMs witha privileged background, of course, but a fair number of PMs have been state educated and, as mentioned, Lloyd-George and MacDonald were non-selective schools too.
6: They're not "innocent". If you're using that workers services then you are a party to the dispute, stop using their services if you want to be unaffected by the strike.
You seem to think you can rely upon workers without paying them what they want to be paid. That's not a free market and its not liberal, or appropriate.
If you want to rely upon workers then pay them the going rate to get them into work. If you don't want to, then don't rely upon them.
If you are using someone's services, why do you think you are "innocent" of the dispute. Stop using the service and then you'll be, but if you're using the service you need to pay for it.
Now the machines are about to take over all the jobs we LIKE
Not all that long ago this would be unthinkably awful.
In France, EDF was 100% nationalised and the government directed them not to change energy prices. This means that debt is piling up in EDF - which has to buy natural gas on the open market. The debt is effectively government debt…
They are buying a lot of electricity from the U.K. and other countries, because a number of the nuke plants are in deep maintenance.
Thank God for Greenpeace or it would have been the dullest ever.
What I find confusing is that a small state and low tax message is hardly controversial, so why has she provoked such a revolt?
The only conclusion I can draw is that Britain's fiscal position is incredibly precarious and her initial promise of borrowing would have pushed us over the edge. What state will the country be in by the time of the next GE?
In an ideal world, they would have such influence, but this is not that world.
And yes, everyone has the choice to drive to work, or get a taxi, or alternatives like quitting which Driver so kindly suggested as the alternative for train workers. If quitting is an appropriate option for train workers, its an appropriate option for train customers too, who are not "innocent" of any train dispute.
Plus there are some things the AI can't do. Human interaction, where the uncanny Valley discomforts people. Management and oversight. People development. These jobs will become more productive and better paid due to the greater wealth generated per worker on the automation-assisted ones.
A much more confident speech than many were expecting. She has drawn clear political lines on EU, immigration, tax and defence and defined her opponents. Whatever we think of content, you can see clearly here why Liz Truss won over Conservative party members.
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1577611588101705731