Corbyn and Momentum

Also some people including journalists have a very strange sense of humour especially when it comes to protecting vested interests such as tax havens

Especially journalists, Grandad! Their jobs depend on it.
Can you think of any national daily paper that has not made use of tax havens or offshore companies? Left or right wing, they are all doing it.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/02/28/how-can-we-ensure-that-tax-evaders-and-aggressive-tax-avoiders-do-not-profit-from-taxpayer-funded-public-procurement-contracts/

Nobody is "getting at" anniebach or anyone else. Disagreeing with what someone says is not getting at them - it is simply refuting some of the unsubstantiated, and sometimes quite nasty or sarcastic, ways in which views are expressed.

It is hardly surprising that someone who professes to be a loyal member of the Labour Party - who on every political thread attacks and undermines Labour while praising Conservative MPs and policies - will come up against opposing views. If someone who described themselves as a loyal Conservative Party member continually started threads and made comments attacking the Conservative Party, I think pro-Conservative supporters would question the motivation and aims of that person.

It seems to me that anti-Labour Gransnetters like to imply in their asides, e.g. ( "dons helmet and runs for cover"), that they are nervous of expressing their views because the "lefties", "commies" "Corbynites" etc, etc, will intimidate them. It appears to me that it is much easier to use this "I'm being picked on" avoidance technique than actually debate the issues or provide further information to support opinions given.

It's amazing that the so-called Winter of Discontent is still wheeled out (by a loyal Labour supporter) as a reason why people should not vote Labour, or at least a Labour Party that has any dealings with unions (unions are apparently only acceptable if they have no power whatsoever.) It would appear that to some it is far more acceptable for a political party to be bankrolled by hedge fund managers, CEOs and extremely wealthy individuals than ordinary people.

The problems that arose between 1974 and 1979 were not due to ineffective or profligate governance. 1973 was the start of the oil crisis. In that year oil prices rose 400%. In 1979 they again rose, this time by 100%. Can you imagine the impact that would have on the economy today?! The period 1974-1979 was therefore one of high inflation and declining living standards. In 1975 inflation was running at 27%. Government policy was to keep pay increases to 5% so it is unsurprising that this was a time of great political turbulence and union involvement.

As for the view that British Rail was dirtier and less efficient that the current collection of private rail companies, it seems inevitable to me that standards then would have been lower because travel generally has improved greatly over time. I can remember travelling on Corona coaches when I was young. They shook, rattled and rolled along, puffing out exhaust fumes, while inside passengers sat in cramped, uncomfortable seats and breathed in smoke and petrol fumes. Coaches today are smooth, comfortable, air-conditioned, with large windows and curtains, and often toilets.

Just read through the last couple of pages. Good posts. Heartlifting to see such measured tones.

I assume Mogg will make a public apology after deliberately lying about Corbyn on Channel 4.

Channel 4 have confirmed.

What the MSM and their cronies have not yet realised that they simply cannot get away with trying to treat people like idiots any longer.social media has given us a platform that is out of the MSM’s control and calling these liars out.

Like this post

“Anti-semitism, inciting violence against MPs, and the language of war. The Telegraph has become the sewer for all that is wrong with the U.K.”
Jo Maugham QC

It's sad though, isn't it whitewave. I know the Telegraph - often called the Torygraph - was always seen as coming from a right-wing stance but it does seem to be plumbing depths on a par with the DM these days.

I suppose they are all fighting for the remaining readership as people get their news more and more in other ways. Such a shame - and I believe short sighted - that they believe this is the audience they are left with.

Hello, this particular post accused others of being bullies which is a no-no on Gransnet. On we march.

The winter of discontent was mainly the result of several mistakes by Jim Callaghan. The unions had put up with 10 years of pay restraint. Bosses were getting huge increases but working men were not. Callaghan failed to offer a compromise. He also lost the opportunity to go for an early election and refused to do so.
It wasn't case of the unions running the government just of them seeking to get the wage increases their members wee entitled to.

The unions had put up with 10 years of pay restraint. Bosses were getting huge increases but working men were not.

That sounds horribly familiar at the moment, trisher.

It seems to me that anti-Labour Gransnetters like to imply in their asides, e.g. ( "dons helmet and runs for cover"), that they are nervous of expressing their views because the "lefties", "commies" "Corbynites" etc, etc, will intimidate them.

I use it because I know that what I've posted will be met with a response of personal attacks, or to indicate that it's a bit of lateral stretch to see how I got there and is self-deprecating - 'wears a tin foil hat'. It's an opportunity to keep things a bit light-hearted and human too.

I'm not in the least bit intimidated by anyone here on the forum, but thanks for at least acknowledging that some posters are intimidated here. These people just don't post anymore, which is such a shame.

The unions had put up with 10 years of pay restraint. Bosses were getting huge increases but working men were not.

I don't think that was the case trisher. Can you give any example of a service that went on strike because the bosses got a huge increase but the workers did not? These were mostly public sector workers - I think it's highly unlikely to be undocumented by the unions if senior pay bands were given the 25% that the unions wanted when the junior pay bands were only offered 5%.

I think it was because the unions were subjected to pay caps by the government in an attempt to keep a lid on inflation. Near the end of the disputes, Healy wanted a 5% cap and the unions wanted free collective bargaining.

There are some excellent videos on youtube about this, well worth a watch if only for the fashion

Watch Secret history Primrose65 www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYWsUXQrLYw
Ford director had had an 80% increase in salary. Ford were making huge profits. All expected a pay rise of more than 5%

Thanks for the link, I'll watch it!

primrose I didn't acknowledge that some posters are intimidated. I said they " ...... like to imply in their asides, e.g. ( "dons helmet and runs for cover"), that they are nervous of expressing their views...... ". I see it as a attempt to discredit certain opinions and divert attention away from the reluctance of some to address the issues raised. Many of the posters who complain of being harassed or intimidated seem to me to continue to be be pretty vocal and are also not averse to making sarcastic remarks or misrepresenting those whose political stance they do not like as being hard/far/militant/Corbynistas/lefties/commies, etc.

TBH eloethan I’ve decided that nothing you say will make a blind bit of difference, and quite frankly it is simply not worth bothering about. So carry on with your excellent well put together and intelligent posts, I for one enjoy reading them.

Labour want St David’s day to be. Bank Holiday.

Mogg has acknowledged his lie and apologised to Corbyn.

What a lot they all are.

Oh! As you were - he isn’t man enough to apologise but simply acknowledges he was wrong.

What a charmer

pbs.twimg.com/media/DXJ0FOxXkAAHydj?format=jpg

Momentum are sending out advise for people wanting to help rough sleepers. So by all means give them a hot drink, but the best thing is to do is to contact Streetlink who will help these folk by finding them some sheltevas this is the most important help they can receive.

Good advise

Apologies if I am wrong,but doesn’t the OP say: Hopefully this will be about politics & news only, with no personal remarks or attempts to stifle? Now where were we ohh ,yes so who is more dangerous Jon Lansmon or Corbyn? pherhaps the answer is Both.

Labour want St David’s day to be. Bank Holiday.
There seem to be quite a few Bank Holidays in Spring - what we need is a Bank Holiday between September and Christmas - any ideas anyone?

I really enjoyed that documentary trisher. It did get me thinking about a few things and I'll apologise now for such a long post.

As you and the documentary looked at Ford, I did a bit of quick research.

The chairman was not a fat cat boss at all. Sir Terence Beckett - he was then Terry Beckett - was promoted up from the workforce. He joined Ford in 1950 and was the manager who led the development of the Cortina and the Transit van. After running Ford for 6 years, he left in 1980 to become director general of the CBI, calling industry “to take the gloves off and have a bare-knuckle fight” with Thatcher over parts of her policies he disagreed with.
(All from wiki and his obituary in various newspapers)

All the company accounts from that time are available at Companies House and they are much simpler than they are today. It makes it super easy to find things out, like the Chairman's salary.

1975 : £37,612
1976 : £30,457
1977 : £54,843

So yes, it is absolutely true that he had an 80% pay rise. What is not mentioned and is very relevant in my opinion, is that the year before, he took a 20% pay cut.

The accounts also show the number of employees and total of employees salaries. This makes it easy to see the average wages at that time were

1975 : £3,797
1976 : £4,372
1977 : £4,491

So the Chairman earned between 7 times and 12 times the average salary paid, which included women and part-time workers. This would have been the information available to people at the time of the negotiations and strike. He was not a 'fat cat boss' taking money from the company and without government intervention, he gave good pay rises.

I don't think the unions were protesting about the pay rises of the Chairman at all. He came from the shop floor, he lobbied the government to be allowed to pay an increase of 17% (which would have cost around 70% of the company profits after taxation and seemed to be prevailing culture) but he was constrained by the government.

I still think the winter of discontent was about the government policy of pay restraint and not about the bosses salary or pay rise. It was fascinating though to dig through a few bits though - it really was a very different time to today.

Message from Lansman
pbs.twimg.com/media/DXNGSA3WAAA7Mzr?format=jpg

primrose can you let me know what you fed Into the search at companies house? I’d like to have a look myself