tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post1198699024056796776..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Gayers Now More Likely to Vote Tory Than Labour (Or LibDem)Iain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-11173030192362479862009-04-04T19:42:00.000+01:002009-04-04T19:42:00.000+01:00http://pecksniffs-descent.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay...http://pecksniffs-descent.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-people-persecution-and-conservative.htmlTom Pinchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08674894454731918114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-82876135840499276162009-04-04T13:01:00.000+01:002009-04-04T13:01:00.000+01:00@ John BuckinghamSo the Unison website speaks on b...@ John Buckingham<BR/><BR/>So the Unison website speaks on behalf of all trade unionists, does it? And let's not be too naive about that, eh? <BR/><BR/>You 'wonder why' - yet choose to blame Thatcher?<BR/><BR/>Over a decade of NuLab and no progress whatsoever. (Civitas' 20% is within the margin of error)<BR/><BR/>I did not say 'much more needs to be done' did I? So don't try to put words in my mouth. What I think is that <I>something</I> needs to be done - and NuLab have failed spectacularly even to do that.<BR/><BR/>Things are infinitely worse - witness today's reports on relative food costs which are based on retrospective analysis. There's escalating child poverty (e.g. 29% below the poverty line in Wales - up from 27% the year before) Child malnutrition, anyone? <BR/><BR/>As to "its not why people join the Tories". Garbage. As I said before, you really don't have a clue - beyond your own astoundingly blinkered bias against the Tories. If you have, then put up your evidence. What's obvious is that the NuLab experiment has failed.Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-38212047467990085262009-04-04T11:15:00.000+01:002009-04-04T11:15:00.000+01:00OFF TOPIC ECONOMICS LECTURE 101TRADE UNIONSIn a co...OFF TOPIC ECONOMICS LECTURE 101<BR/><BR/>TRADE UNIONS<BR/><BR/>In a competitive labour market higher wages may cause unemployment. Trades unions may cause wages to go above equilibrium via the threat of strikes e.t.c. When wages are above the equilibrium this will cause a decline in employment.<BR/><BR/>A trade union is concerned with the interests of its members, ignoring those who are excluded from the labour markets, e.g. the unemployed.<BR/><BR/>If unions go on strike or work unproductively (work to rule) this may lead to lost output and sales. This may reduce the number of employees an employer can employ, and may cause the business to fail, increasing unemployment.<BR/><BR/>If unions demand wages above the rate of inflation this contributes to general inflation. This damages an economy generating higher unemployment.<BR/><BR/>If trades unions face a monopoly employer they can help counterbalance the employers market power. In this situation unions can increase wages without causing unemployment. If however unions force wages to be uncompetitive they will increase unemployment.<BR/><BR/>It is possible for trade unions to co-operate with employers in increasing productivity. This can only happen however if class war warriors (such as John Buckingham) both understand the laws of economics, and care about something other than their resentments. This however is a big ask.wildhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14437167510102273197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-83335621977531870712009-04-04T00:39:00.000+01:002009-04-04T00:39:00.000+01:00Yeah, might use that one myself the next time I ca...Yeah, might use that one myself the next time I can't be bothered to find evidence to back up an opinion...<BR/>And given that I've provided some empirical evidence, and you have not, I think I'm winning on the 'research' front at the minute.John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67482499517879646562009-04-04T00:11:00.000+01:002009-04-04T00:11:00.000+01:00I would like to see evidence of Trade Unions putti...<I>I would like to see evidence of Trade Unions putting workers out of a job</I><BR/><BR/>If (it of course a big if) you want to do more, in the period between your birth and death, than parrot political slogans crafted by people who would prefer it if you did not think for yourself, then it would be better if you worked out the answer to that one yourself. <BR/><BR/>a) It is not hard<BR/><BR/>b) I am not your tutor<BR/><BR/>c) You might learn somethingwildhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14437167510102273197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-52803270084010251532009-04-03T23:08:00.000+01:002009-04-03T23:08:00.000+01:00What a comeback! That was a brilliant show of evid...What a comeback! That was a brilliant show of evidence-based opinion. Weren't you taught to 'show your workings' at school? I suppose whether your last comment is complimentary or not depends on the politician...John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-71582518717466267682009-04-03T22:37:00.000+01:002009-04-03T22:37:00.000+01:00I would like to see evidence of Trade Unions putti...<I>I would like to see evidence of Trade Unions putting workers out of a job </I><BR/><BR/>I will leave you to work out the answer to that one yourself, but given your inability to think beyond childish slogans I am not holding my breath.<BR/><BR/>You are a Leftist politicians wet dream.wildhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14437167510102273197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-20902139269993388352009-04-03T22:34:00.000+01:002009-04-03T22:34:00.000+01:00OK, go to the Unison website, look at their member...OK, go to the Unison website, look at their membership form and tell me it's not voluntary. It's clearly there in black and white. Clearly the money from the fund will have to be spent for its intended purpose, don't flog a <BR/>dead horse.<BR/><BR/>The % kids in single parent families doubled under Thatcher from 10% to 22% (see Hills et al, A More Equal Society?) - wonder why that was? According to right-wing Civitas, it's still around 20%(http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php) - so who's to blame for 'broken Britain'? The damage the Tories did was never going to be undone by the timidity of New Labour, but 'more of the same' from the Tories won't help either. However, the OECD recently reported that the UK was the only member country to reduce inequality in the last decade, and several million people have been lifted out of relative poverty.<BR/><BR/>I wholeheartedly agree much more needs to be done - we need an end to New Labour of course, and an absolute focus on the poor so that every policy is designed to help them get on. Will you get that from Tories? No, because that's not what Tories are interested in, it's not why people join the Tories, and it's not in keeping with Tory values. <BR/><BR/>Don't forget that when the Tories came in to power 1/10 kids in Britain lived in poverty; when they left it was 1 in 3. I just don't trust them.John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-59336162091149498772009-04-03T22:01:00.000+01:002009-04-03T22:01:00.000+01:00@ John BuckinghamYou're making several wild assump...@ John Buckingham<BR/><BR/>You're making several wild assumptions here. Who, exactly, is 'you'?<BR/><BR/>3.5 million people 'willing' to help them? Don't be so silly. 'Voluntary contributions' my arse.<BR/><BR/>As to evidence. Well the union leaders may be cretinous but just how stupid do you think they are?It's the money-go-round, ain't it? Did anyone say that <I>all</I> of the unions' political contributions came from the improvement fund? Union memberships have been stiffed by their officers in a big way. I'm old enough to have met and talked with old-fashioned trade-unionists such as George Woodcock and Len Murray. They would have been mortified at the state of Britain now. They would have been horrified at the state of the Union movement today.<BR/><BR/>Despite your assertions you really don't have a clue as to why people join any political party, do you? Where's your evidence, where's your research? There's a wealth of difference between making statutory or 'voluntary' contributions and actual voting patterns.<BR/><BR/>And you seriously believe that we now have a more 'equal' society, with less family breakdown - and you genuinely believe this busted society has improved in any way over the past decade? <BR/><BR/>I often work in some of the most deprived areas in the South East. In my direct personal experience things have not improved for the poorest - and the gap between rich and poor has increased phenomenally. More than ten years of Labour Government - and we're in this state. It is shameful and disgusting.Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-57816545450871418492009-04-03T21:10:00.000+01:002009-04-03T21:10:00.000+01:00Oh, I'm sorry, when was it discredited? Was it whe...Oh, I'm sorry, when was it discredited? Was it when you were tripling child poverty and slashing taxes for the rich, or when you were vastly increasing the level of inequality and family breakdown and destroying communities? No-one joins the Tories to improve the lives of others, they do so to line their pockets. <BR/><BR/>That development fund story is nonsense - certainly the govt pays about £3m a year (peanuts) to unions for devt projects (I'd like to hear how much it subsidises business owners - somewhat more?!), but there's no evidence or even claims that that is the money the unions pay to Labour, which largely comes directly from the political funds which individual members pay into. And since the money raised by the political fund is 3 the annual value of these grants, the argument holds little water. Perhaps you're a little jealous that the Toris don't have 3.5m people willing to help fund them? <BR/>(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6175937.stm)<BR/>And Labour is now 90% union-funded (that is, funded by ordinary working people), so no-one can claim we're bankrolled by the wealthy. Remember also that the development money goes to many unions (32?), only 12 (i think) of which are Labour affiliates, so they're getting very little each.John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42194097919161422832009-04-03T20:47:00.000+01:002009-04-03T20:47:00.000+01:00@ John Buckingham"...they're about groups of peopl...@ John Buckingham<BR/><BR/><I>"...they're about groups of people getting together because they'd be powerless alone, in order to improve their and others' working conditions"</I><BR/>That's what they originally were for, but tell that to the likes of Derek Simpson, eh?<BR/><BR/><I>"...the very definition of democratic engagement"</I><BR/>WTF is 'democratic engagement'?<BR/><BR/><I>"...Whereas wealthy people fund the Tory party in order to get wealthier"</I><BR/>Oh God! Not that old, tired, discredited class-war mantra again. Care to comment on the likes of Sainsbury? Care to comment on Trade Union funding of the Labour Party using 'development fund' moneys extracted from we taxpayers?Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-3129965412874086092009-04-03T20:25:00.000+01:002009-04-03T20:25:00.000+01:00I don't believe trade unions are about unselfishne...I don't believe trade unions are about unselfishness, nor should they have to be - they're about groups of people getting together because they'd be powerless alone, in order to improve their and others' working conditions: the very definition of democratic engagement. Whereas wealthy people fund the Tory party in order to get wealthier - so I think we have God on our side on that one - camels and needles and all...<BR/><BR/>I would like to see evidence of trade unions putting workers out of a job; as I've mentioned, increased labour rights are associated with increased FDI flows, due to the benefits for political stability. <BR/><BR/>"By dressing up your hatred and intolerance as kindness and conscience you are at least acknowledging the superiority of virtue over vice." Er, is that supposed to be profound?! Yes, I prefer good to evil...hence why I'm a Labour member! And yes, anyone who believes in naked individualism is morally degenerate, which is why any Christian or well-raised person should have nothing to do with Toryism.John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-73663406081310433072009-04-03T19:20:00.000+01:002009-04-03T19:20:00.000+01:00John,As you know full well Trade Unions are a spec...John,<BR/><BR/>As you know full well Trade Unions are a special interest group that fund the Labour Party in order that legislation be put in place that puts other "workers" out of a job.<BR/><BR/>If you believe that Trade Unions are about unselfishness then you have simply not understood the concept. <BR/><BR/>As for the "degenerates" (such revealing language) who vote "Tory" your childish labels would be laughable were they not so sinister.<BR/><BR/>By dressing up your hatred and intolerance as kindness and conscience you are at least acknowledging the superiority of virtue over vice.wildhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14437167510102273197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-85962612712843593522009-04-03T15:15:00.000+01:002009-04-03T15:15:00.000+01:00Update: Same sex marriages will be allowed in Iowa...Update: Same sex marriages will be allowed in Iowa from April 24th. It would take until 2012 to get a constitutional ban through the Iowa system (by which time it will hopefully be a non-issue).<BR/><BR/>Plus Vermont yesterday approved same-sex marriage by huge majorities in both houses (although the Governor could still veto).<BR/><BR/>How long before the UK catches up?Paul Halsallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602075031268155220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-59757750814799544892009-04-03T14:53:00.000+01:002009-04-03T14:53:00.000+01:00Iowa's Supreme Court just legalised same-sex marri...Iowa's Supreme Court just legalised same-sex marriage (full use of the term). http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010Paul Halsallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602075031268155220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-26191833064089433952009-04-03T12:45:00.000+01:002009-04-03T12:45:00.000+01:00Wild, the fact that Labour has enacted a few bits ...Wild, the fact that Labour has enacted a few bits and bobs of legislation that favour workers (not 'unions') is hardly proof of strong union influence - the unions take what they think they'll get and don't ask for any more. And of course it is individual union members, opting in to their political funds, not 'unions' per se, who have made those donations. <BR/><BR/>My characterisation of the Tories is no less 'comic book' than yours of Labour - which I'm happy to disagree on. I do believe that most Tories are selfish individualists with little regard for the wellbeing of others - and Tory policies in the past strongly support that view; I think we should condemn such degeneracy, but if you like it, that's fine, it's a free country. I don't know where you got your 'one party state' thing from - I think you're wrong, not that you should stop talking. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're infringing your human rights...<BR/><BR/>Sorry conand, I obviously misunderstood your comment. I would certainly agree that the government must share the blame (if it had followed the left's advice this would never have happened), but I would maintain that selfishness and greed in the City are problems - and they stem from Tory values, not Labour ones.John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-49835519695734848042009-04-03T10:39:00.000+01:002009-04-03T10:39:00.000+01:00"Gay people as a group" - that would be the "gay c..."Gay people as a group" - that would be the "gay community".<BR/><BR/>Simon: "gay partnership legislation - which still needs to be converted to be called marriage." "Calling" it marriage wouldn't, and couldn't, make it so.<BR/><BR/>Paul: "If ... Cameron's Tories ... allow those religious groups that want it to celebrate gay unions in church ..." They already can, where the church concerned agrees; and if a church doesn't agree, then Cameron's Tories would not be able to make it do so.Little Black Sambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699227938165106710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-35794322039132876492009-04-03T10:07:00.000+01:002009-04-03T10:07:00.000+01:00@ Simon Gardner"I don’t know any Tories socially (...@ Simon Gardner<BR/><BR/><I>"I don’t know any Tories socially (gay or straight) and they’d certainly not be in our social circle for a moment if they were [Tory]."</I><BR/><BR/>OK, so do you know any at all? If not, your understanding of them must be very limited. But that is self-evident.Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-57793934280366493032009-04-03T02:04:00.000+01:002009-04-03T02:04:00.000+01:00John,As you know full well the Working Time Direct...John,<BR/><BR/>As you know full well the Working Time Directive, the Warwick Agreement, the Employment Relations Act, and the Legal Services Act are all examples of legislation which has been favourable to the Trade Unions. <BR/><BR/>You are also fully aware that over the same period, the Trade Unions have been big donors to the Labour Party. Since 2001 they have given well in excess of £55.5 million to the Labour Party, two thirds of the total of the donations.<BR/><BR/>You know full well that it is incorrect to state that "Tories seek the system which works best for the few" whereas Socialists seek a system that "works for everyone." That is just comic book stuff. <BR/><BR/>Of course there are debates about what "system" delivers the best service to the user (rather than the provider) but your claim was that "Tories" are insensitive to moral considerations.<BR/><BR/>If you carry through the logic of that belief only Labour Party members ought to have the vote at elections. A One Party State after all would relieve you from the irksome business of having to listen to people with a different point of view.wildhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14437167510102273197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-55882981393522253072009-04-03T01:30:00.000+01:002009-04-03T01:30:00.000+01:00@ John Buckingham'I'm sorry Conan (sic), I'm not q...@ John Buckingham<BR/><BR/>'I'm sorry Conan (sic), I'm not quite sure what point you're making - are you seriously suggesting that healthcare assistants and nurses who are Unison members are part of a pampered, self-serving elite?<BR/><BR/>[No, I'm not.]<BR/><BR/>I would remind you that it is the Tory elite (your friends in the city) who are the cause of our economic woes.<BR/><BR/>[Absurd, bigoted nonsense. I seem to remember that it was Gordon's friends in the city who made the biggest cockups. You know the ones, he gave them Peerages and Knighthoods and got one a job at the top of the FSA FFS!. So the government weren't at all to blame? They created the regulatory framework, they were meant to supervise that framework and they created the taxation environment.]<BR/><BR/>And anyone who thinks the unions have any real power in the Labour Party is having a laugh - if only!<BR/><BR/>[I was making a point about the origins of the Labour movement and how IMHO it has created a system akin to the one it's founders despised. I made no reference to the present relationships between the Unions and the Labour party.]<BR/><BR/>wv: ant rings How lovely.Conandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028671462205997161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-17498539025695939692009-04-03T01:21:00.000+01:002009-04-03T01:21:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Conandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028671462205997161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-34380992452921422542009-04-03T01:17:00.000+01:002009-04-03T01:17:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Conandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028671462205997161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-77825984381742041222009-04-03T00:18:00.000+01:002009-04-03T00:18:00.000+01:00Who gives a shit!Who gives a shit!bryboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00854869835916315551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-14006616668246036212009-04-02T23:39:00.000+01:002009-04-02T23:39:00.000+01:00I'm sorry Conan, I'm not quite sure what point you...I'm sorry Conan, I'm not quite sure what point you're making - are you seriously suggesting that healthcare assistants and nurses who are Unison members are part of a pampered, self-serving elite? I would remind you that it is the Tory elite (your friends in the city) who are the cause of our economic woes. And anyone who thinks the unions have any real power in the Labour Party is having a laugh - if only!<BR/><BR/>Wild, since you have decided to reply to arguments entirely different from those I made, it scarcely seems worth responding, but I would say that anyone who believes private enterprise is the best way to provide transport and public services is living in cloud cuckoo land - pointless duplication, removal of unprofitable but vital services, orientation towards the needs of the moneyed, total postcode lotteries (better services in better areas), no democratic control over services, no special provision for vulnerable groups etc etc. <BR/><BR/>You also continually refer to the 'state' providing services - is a teacher really 'the state', or someone capable of making their own rational decisions? Certainly teachers should be more free - but who introduced the National Curriculum? Tories seek the system which works best for the few; socialists seek to remedy that system so that it works for everyone. And if socialist countries are so lacking in decency, it is very odd that Scandinavian countries compare very favourably to our own when it comes to people's perceptions of other's consideration for their wellbeing. <BR/><BR/>I don't really understand what point you're making with regard to the public sector - since the NHS, education etc allow pooling of risk/need, they're far more cost-effective than individual private provision. Do you really think people with no kids shouldn't have to pay for education through tax? Or that the healthy shouldn't be willing to pay for the ill to get better? If so, you really have been brought up badly - you seem to subscribe to an exceedingly morally degenerate form of individualism...John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-61295871698510048402009-04-02T23:05:00.000+01:002009-04-02T23:05:00.000+01:00@wild Sorry! It was more a response to John Buckin...@wild Sorry! It was more a response to John Buckingham. You see my point though right? :)<BR/><BR/> @Iain Dale Publisher of Total Politics & Tory Blogga,<BR/><BR/> I totally agree with everything you've said in the post and the comments. I hereby claim my £5<BR/> One of the reasons I avoided coming out as a Tory was they didn't seem too friendly with regards to my friends who'd paddled or channel-crossed within the gaying milieux.<BR/> I'm glad that has changed.Conandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028671462205997161noreply@blogger.com