advertisement


Next Labour Leader II

Status
Not open for further replies.
gassor said:
Anyone earning over £80,000 was defined by McDonnell as being in the top 5% of earners ie 'The Rich'. Aren't the Rich parasites on decent hard-working people according to left-wing folklore?
Click to expand...
It wasn't McDonnell who defined them thus, it's a basic fact. As for "left-wing folklore" why bother with straw men if the actual left already represents such an easy target?
 
thebigfredc said:
Perhaps they were self employed or ran a business - the Tories have historically championed lower corporation tax rates so that may have been their motive.

Perhaps they or someone close to them had been traumatised by a crime and the perpetrator had been given only a light sentence and it could be argued that the Conservatives at least talk tough on crime.

I am only guessing of course but at least that is better than Jack's determining the way people should vote by skin colour approach and way better than labelling them as stupid from a 10 second cameo on the telly.
Click to expand...
It took ten years of Tory government policy for them to come to the conclusions you're suggesting? I think not...
 
Seanm said:
It wasn't McDonnell who defined them thus, it's a basic fact. As for "left-wing folklore" why bother with straw men if the actual left already represents such an easy target?
Click to expand...

Don't know who defined them but McDonnell called them the Rich who would pay more income tax under a Labour government. The folklore quip was just to lighten to the tone, doesn't seem to have worked.
 
gassor said:
Anyone earning over £80,000 was defined by McDonnell as being in the top 5% of earners ie 'The Rich'. Aren't the Rich parasites on decent hard-working people according to left-wing folklore?
Click to expand...
People earning over £80k are in the top 5%. The rest, as you say, is folklore and as such, rests on past myths.
 
It is rather contradictory discussing salary of union leaders, on the one hand it is a big job with lots of responsibility & should be paid accordingly on the other it removes them from their members. Having said that, are they actually earning that much more than their members?

I believe Cameron never took a salary when PM but that doesn't make him a paragon of virtue.

I don't particularly like Len so my views are coloured by that; not a fan of the way he speaks on behalf of the Labour Party. His reasoning for selecting Burgon as deputy has become a meme, hilarious. Apparently he has vision but it is not clear what that vision is.
 
SteveT said:
This is the new world that we live in now. I am incensed and outraged on behalf of someone who I have never met or likely to meet who happens to be in the Union which I am not a member of I hasten to add who is working really hard but does not earn a fraction of what McCluskey earns and is never likely to be in a position to rise to the top and thereby earn this amount. Furthermore the person on behalf of who I am outraged and incensed at this anomaly does not even know that there is such a disparity in their respective earnings. But I feel better for making this point public. My self righteousness makes me feel warm inside and hopefully I will get some more Likes and Thumbs Ups from a lot of people who I have never met.

Gee everything is good in the world again.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but not sure what you’re point is. As someone who worked for a union, and worked long hours representing members in stressful circumstances, I’d bet that I was paid considerably less than my General Secretary. As I wasn’t paid at all, it would’ve been a pretty safe bet. But what she was paid is irrelevant to anything. If I considered her useless, I’d want her replaced with someone who made my job easier, not have her paid less.
 
ks.234 said:
Sorry, but not sure what you’re point is. As someone who worked for a union, and worked long hours representing members in stressful circumstances, I’d bet that I was paid considerably less than my General Secretary. As I wasn’t paid at all, it would’ve been a pretty safe bet. But what she was paid is irrelevant to anything. If I considered her useless, I’d want her replaced with someone who made my job easier, not have her paid less.
Click to expand...
Wasn't he sending up the views of others rather than expressing his own?
 
ks.234 said:
What difference does it make how much does McCluskey earns? If you dislike him, would you dislike him less if he earned less? Would he be worth more if your personal opinion of him was higher? If you dislike him and you’re not a member of a union, how do his wages impact on you?
Click to expand...

For me it is the sheer hypocrisy of trough-feeding ones way into the 1% earnings category purely on the back of subs of often very low-waged union members. As you point out McCluskey isn’t the worst here, there are many similar parasites across the trade union movement who seem to think their years of greasy pole climbing within the organisational structure is somehow worth that excessive reward. I’m all for genuinely creative people making good money from their talent and innovation (i.e. basic capitalism), but this isn’t that at all. Does the checkout girl at Asda or wherever really want her trade union leader to be earning more than the Prime Minister on the back of union subs she may actually struggle to pay?
 
Tony L said:
For me it is the sheer hypocrisy of trough-feeding ones way into the 1% earnings category purely on the back of subs of often very low-waged union members. As you point out McCluskey isn’t the worst here, there are many similar parasites across the trade union movement who seem to think their years of greasy pole climbing within the organisational structure is somehow worth that excessive reward. I’m all for genuinely creative people making good money from their talent and innovation (i.e. basic capitalism), but this isn’t that at all. Does the checkout girl at Asda or wherever really want her trade union leader to be earning more than the Prime Minister on the back of union subs she may struggle to pay?
Click to expand...

It's the role of the union bureaucrat in our society, they were bought off and seperated from their memberships quite deliberately. Back in the day you'd try to get a deal with management before the paid official turned up!
 
Tony L said:
For me it is the sheer hypocrisy of trough-feeding ones way into the 1% earnings category purely on the back of subs of often very low-waged union members. As you point out McCluskey isn’t the worst here, there are many similar parasites across the trade union movement who seem to think their years of greasy pole climbing within the organisational structure is somehow worth that excessive reward. I’m all for genuinely creative people making good money from their talent and innovation (i.e. basic capitalism), but this isn’t that at all. Does the checkout girl at Asda or wherever really want her trade union leader to be earning more than the Prime Minister on the back of union subs she may actually struggle to pay?
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy does indeed seem to be a charge that justifies all sorts of responses, however intemperate. You can basically say anything as long as the idea of hypocrisy's in there. For example Tony you're the first to start talking about frothing class warriors and the politics of envy if anyone should suggest something like democratic ownership funds, or setting limits on pay ratios. Yet here we are with talk of parasites for people who do genuinely essential and difficult jobs (however well or badly) for (in this case) about what a bog standard management consultant might expect to be earning in their thirties.

I don't actually know what union leaders earn. I tried googling and I got a lot of articles for the Express and the Telegraph absolutely outraged on behalf of low paid workers. Now that's hypocrisy.

Edit: I waded through the bile and double-talk of those articles and it seems that there are 30 union leaders on over 100 grand a year. I don't know if this is exactly an epidemic or a huge drain on the coffers. Or even if that level of pay is excessive. I mean, compared to an equivalent in the private sector, where UK bosses earn 117 times average worker. Where's all the talk about market forces now? You want the best people you have to pay competitive rates, isn't that how it goes? Value for money for shareholders?
 
Tony L said:
For me it is the sheer hypocrisy of trough-feeding ones way into the 1% earnings category purely on the back of subs of often very low-waged union members. As you point out McCluskey isn’t the worst here, there are many similar parasites across the trade union movement who seem to think their years of greasy pole climbing within the organisational structure is somehow worth that excessive reward. I’m all for genuinely creative people making good money from their talent and innovation (i.e. basic capitalism), but this isn’t that at all. Does the checkout girl at Asda or wherever really want her trade union leader to be earning more than the Prime Minister on the back of union subs she may actually struggle to pay?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t argue with any of that, just to say that there are far bigger targets we should be directing anger at. Targets such as revolving door policies that rewards incompetence with public money to the tune of millions

49438910622_a559153f60_b.jpg
 
Seanm said:
Hypocrisy does indeed seem to be a charge that justifies all sorts of responses, however intemperate. You can basically say anything as long as the idea of hypocrisy's in there. For example Tony you're the first to start talking about frothing class warriors and the politics of envy if anyone should suggest something like democratic ownership funds, or setting limits on pay ratios. Yet here we are with talk of parasites for people who do genuinely essential and difficult jobs (however well or badly) for (in this case) about what a bog standard management consultant might expect to be earning in their thirties.

I don't actually know what union leaders earn. I tried googling and I got a lot of articles for the Express and the Telegraph absolutely outraged on behalf of low paid workers. Now that's hypocrisy.

Edit: I waded through the bile and double-talk of those articles and it seems that there are 30 union leaders on over 100 grand a year. I don't know if this is exactly an epidemic or a huge drain on the coffers. Or even if that level of pay is excessive. I mean, compared to an equivalent in the private sector, where UK bosses earn 117 times average worker. Where's all the talk about market forces now? You want the best people you have to pay competitive rates, isn't that how it goes? Value for money for shareholders?
Click to expand...

Sean makes an important point, if we are animated by a union boss earning 5 times the average wage of their members, why are we relaxed about bosses who earn hundreds of times that? Likely more if you include work outsourced to people on zero hours contacts
 
Mcluskey seems to be payed less than his peers so comes out of this quite well.
He’s backed the wrong horse again- this time with RLB.
 
Lightning Len re-writing recent history and talking more bollocks on Marr. There is little hope for Labour with this sort of dinosaur still holding sway. It's not just a new leader required. Love the way he keeps referring to "my" executive.
 
SteveS1 said:
Lightning Len re-writing recent history and talking more bollocks on Marr. There is little hope for Labour with this sort of dinosaur still holding sway. It's not just a new leader required. Love the way he keeps referring to "my" executive.
Click to expand...
McCluskey has his faults for sure, he does the Labour Party no favours when he speaks, but not sure what re-writing of history he did just now?
 
ks.234 said:
McCluskey has his faults for sure, he does the Labour Party no favours when he speaks, but not sure what re-writing of history he did just now?
Click to expand...

I think you do KS. He sees the ambiguity issue from purely a Leave position as if keeping a few Brexit Party voters wouldn't have then lost even more Remainers (of which there are far more in Labour's support). He also (of course) did not accept that Corbyn was in issue despite him quite clearly being the biggest issue - something that both Labour leavers and remainers actually agreed on.

Finally, no humility at all when confronted with Blair's correct assessment that the offer of an election was an 'elephant trap' for Labour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top