 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Oct 21 - 05:09 AM I was responding to your post that used the word "compulsory" twice, and your musing as to whether they'd be fine now. that's all! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Oct 21 - 05:05 AM Hence my question. Has it been suggested that, should an ID card system be introduced, carrying it at all times would be compulsory? It may have been, but I don’t recall it if it has.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Oct 21 - 04:58 AM But I carry it out of choice, generally dictated by convenience. I don't carry it because I've been ordered to by a government. I will never do that, because, as I said, this country doesn't own me. That was my point. Give me an ID card and tell me that I can carry it if I want to. No problem with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Oct 21 - 04:53 AM So, you already have an ID card Steve. Fair enough. Has anyone suggested that, should an ID card system be introduced, it would be compulsory to carry it at all times? If so, I must have missed it. And my suggestion that a ‘Voter ID’ document might be a stealth step by a less-than-up-front Tory government towards the introduction of an ID card system was just that - not in any way a recommendation or indication of my belief in such a thing, I thought I’d made it perfectly clear that I don’t care either way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Oct 21 - 04:44 AM This country does not own me, and what I carry around, or not, to identify myself should always be fully my decision. I never go anywhere (whether driving or not) without my driving licence. My decision. I need it (or something similar to identify myself), quite rightly, to pick up my wine order at Waitrose click and collect, and I need it this morning to pick up an order at the local Argos. I've been caught speeding several times, and that has taught me that it's always a great idea (though it isn't obligatory) to carry the licence with me as it means I don't have the inconvenience of having to go to a police station to show it later. Those are my choices, and I will not carry ID just because a government tells me to. I haven't got a problem with certain convicted criminals wearing tags, but that's the only acceptable exception as far as I'm concerned. Nigel, dear fellow, there is no discernible problem with voter fraud that even remotely requires a law obliging us to carry voter ID. That's the argument, if you're making it, that you've lost. So nitpick away, I'm finished with that avenue of enquiry. On a different tack, here's a comment from a reader under a Guardian opinion piece about the motorway protests. I'm reproducing it because I agree with every word. One of my closest friends is involved in the Insulate Britain protests. In over 30 years of environmental activism she has sacrificed so much, at considerable personal cost. To hear her dismissed as an “irresponsible crusty” by Johnson brought home to me how little thought he actually puts into what he says. As long as he gets in a cheap ad hominem dig and gets to play to the gallery it’s job done. That’s the extent of his involvement. As for the benighted Home Secretary. I was listening to her speech today. She shifted seamlessly from the word “protestor” to the word “criminal”, almost as if they were synonyms. She is a menace. She is a threat to all protest …... a threat to decency. I accept that Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain really piss people off. That’s part of the point. Is it counter-productive? Well, we’re all talking about it, so on an important metric they are succeeding in what they’ve set out to do. After decades of activism with little to show, these are the tactics which finally seem to have broken through. But be under no illusion that this doesn’t come at some personal cost for the protestors. Don’t fall for the bullshit of focusing on who the protestors are. Focus on the issue and its ramifications. Because if you think you’re inconvenienced now, just wait until you see what’s in store if we all continue as we are. We should be just grateful that there are people willing to put themselves on the line for the sake of the rest of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Dave the Gnome Date: 06 Oct 21 - 04:11 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Oct 21 - 04:01 AM Possibly a step towards compulsory National Identity Cards? (For the record, I’m ambivalent about compulsory National ID cards - they seemed to be acceptable during WW2 and in the few years afterwards, maybe they’d be fine now?). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Rain Dog Date: 06 Oct 21 - 03:44 AM Proven cases of electoral fraud are small. There would appear to be little to no evidence that it is a problem in the UK. I would suspect that if it does occur it is more likely to do so in local elections but, like the government, i do not have any evidence to support that suspicion. Of course it was a Labour government that floated this idea before. Indeed they introduced it in Northern Ireland in 2002. I don't know how people over there have taken to it. I am not aware that it is a major issue. BUT. The following text is taken from Channel 4 website. ++ In Northern Ireland, voters who didn’t have the right documents could apply for a free photographic electoral ID card from their local council. This went some way to answering the objection that people who could not afford the application fee for a driving licence or passport might be priced out of voting. When the government first announced this bill in the Queen’s Speech in 2019, it explicitly said it would follow the Northern Ireland model, saying: “Any voter who does not have an approved form of ID will be able to apply, free of charge, for a local electoral identity document.” This assurance is missing from the notes that accompany the 2021 Queen’s Speech, and we haven’t been able to pin the government down on whether they still plan to offer free ID cards to people who don’t have them. On the question of funding, a government spokesman simply told us: “We will set out detail in due course.” ++ The devil is in the detail. If people have to pay for voter id, it will hit the poorest hardest. They are probably more likely to vote labour rather than tory. If the government try to push this through before the next general election, i think that even the less cynical among us will suspect their motives for doing so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 05 Oct 21 - 09:31 PM Stop squirming and admit that your original claim was wrong. To 'a scientist' the difference between 'none' and 'some' should be significant. The fact that there are some proven cases, even if only a few, does not preclude the possibility of other cases not brought to light. But it does preclude the possibility that there's no electoral fraud in this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 09:00 PM Single numbers per annum out of an electorate of forty-odd million. Congratulations, Nigel, on your greatest nitpick ever! Excellent, even for you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 05 Oct 21 - 08:52 PM Well, Nigel, in each of the last four or five years, proven cases of electoral fraud have been in single figures every year (very checkable). The very fact that you accept that there are proven cases is also acceptance that your earlier claim: there's no electoral fraud in this country was untrue. And according to you it was "very checkable". Obviously, as on previous occasions, you committed yourself to print without checking your facts in the belief that a strongly asserted statement would be accepted as 'fact'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 08:00 PM Well, Nigel, in each of the last four or five years, proven cases of electoral fraud have been in single figures every year (very checkable). There are forty-odd million voters in this country. Please tell me, in all seriousness, that you support a measure "to combat electoral fraud" that would, in fact, make it difficult for many thousands of the poorest voters, who couldn't access decent ID, to vote at all. Come along now, Nigel... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 05 Oct 21 - 07:49 PM Oh yes, I nearly forgot. The bill that would require voters to produce ID (and who knows what that would mean...) before they'd be handed their ballot papers is still on the cards. As there's no electoral fraud in this country (which this measure is purportedly there to "eliminate"), Again, a sweeping generalisation from Steve Shaw. While there may not be a major problem with electoral fraud in UK, to say that there is none is not only unproveable but the statement can easily be shown to be false: The Electoral Commission |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 06:57 PM Oh yes, I nearly forgot. The bill that would require voters to produce ID (and who knows what that would mean...) before they'd be handed their ballot papers is still on the cards. As there's no electoral fraud in this country (which this measure is purportedly there to "eliminate"), you could conclude that this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But you'd be wrong. It's a measure that would make it much more difficult for the poor and the deprived to vote at all. Well, if they could vote they wouldn't be voting Tory, would they... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 06:00 PM DMcG, you've neatly summarised why I would never join the National Trust. And the NT profiteers by grossly overcharging non-members for using its car parks round here. Last year, we could use the Leadmines car park at Pentireglaze for free, and the nearby Pentireglaze car park for a quid or two in the honesty box. To do the circular walk you need to park for around 2 1/2 to 3 hours. This year, that suddenly costs four quid in each car park. Both car parks have uneven, stony, weedy and often muddy surfaces. The National Trust can go hang as far as I'm concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 05:46 PM Oh, and by the way, Johnson wants to appoint the bullying, foul-mouthed, alt-right off-shorer ex-editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, as the head of Ofcom, this country's media regulator. Wow... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 05:34 PM Well I'm not quite sure which bit of what you've said I haven't addressed. Hey ho. Johnson doesn't want to make misogyny a hate crime. After all that's happened recently. At the same time, Patel wants to make peaceful environmental protests an imprisonable offence. The Tories want to limit the potential for judicial review to investigate government. The Electoral Commission is also in their sights. Well I think we could be heading towards fascism. I don't think that's putting it too strongly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: DMcG Date: 05 Oct 21 - 05:10 PM On another topic, of less significance but important enough in its way. The National Trust AGM elects six places to its council at the end of this month. There is a group "Restore Trust" which is against all wokeness, pointing out links to slavery and suchlike on its properties. At least some of them are strongly opposed to LGBT+ issues, though the link to National Trust properties seems a bit tenuous. Anyway, these are the list of candidates they recommend you vote for: Michael Goodhart Stephen Green Min Grimshaw David Pearson Andrew Powles Guy Trehane Alternatively, if you are like me, this is a handy list to ensure you do not vote for them by accident. Steven Green's pitch for the role is especially enlightening: am a long-standing member of the National Trust and I seek election to the Council to call the Trust back to its founding principles, to treat its members, donors, volunteers and tenants with respect and to end its promotion of fashionable ‘woke’ causes. Even as I was filling in the Council election forms, the Trust asked not just my sex but my ‘gender identity’ and my sexual orientation! I believe the National Trust elite is obsessed with LGBT issues. I believe a former National Trust curator claimed historical information about Trust properties ‘privileges heterosexual lives’ by ‘offering information about marriages, inheritance and the role of the family’. The Trust should instead ‘provide more information on same-sex desire and LGBTQ+ lives from the past’. The 2017 Felbrigg Hall affair, in which the Trust claimed the donor, the late Robert Ketton-Cremer, was homosexual, on no evidence, shows where this madness leads. I shall ensure that future donors feel safe from the Trust poring over their past and inventing salacious details of an imagined private life. I shall also want to know how much members’ money has been spent in recent years by the National Trust participating in gay pride parades such as it did in Birmingham in 2019. I shall stop divisive marketing exercises and woke virtuesignalling. I also seek your vote to end what I believe to be the anti-democratic, corrupt system whereby the Trust elite ‘recommends’ certain Council election candidates to ensure nobody is elected who will ever actually call them to account. So if I am elected to the National Trust Council it will be nothing less than a miracle! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 05 Oct 21 - 04:53 PM So you have family here,(or) you expect a better life No, I didn't say that. I was responding to Backwoodsman's comment (endorsed by you) that these people were fleeing the danger of violence or death. Set up as many straw men as you wish. My original comment has been avoided by you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 04:18 PM So you have family here, you expect a better life and you can speak English. I could also add that you may well be very willing to work. But, despite all that, you're only allowed in if you're fleeing danger or death (the converse tbc, of course). Not let me think of a few groups of people who get in freely yet can't match those criteria... Judge not, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 05 Oct 21 - 03:48 PM And why would that be, Nigel? Because they have a few grand per person spare to just idly pay traffickers with dangerous dinghies? Feel like delving a little deeper? No need to dig deeper, although several possible reasons suggest themselves: Relatives already in UK Expectation of better treatment here than in France Already understand and speak English None of that however goes against my point that in crossing from France to England they are not "fleeing the danger of violence or death". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 03:12 PM And why would that be, Nigel? Because they have a few grand per person spare to just idly pay traffickers with dangerous dinghies? Feel like delving a little deeper? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 03:08 PM By Woody: Some of us are illegal, and some are not wanted, Our work contract's out and we have to move on; Six hundred miles to that Mexican border, They chase us like outlaws, like rustlers, like thieves. Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye, Rosalita, Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria; You won't have your names when you ride the big airplane, All they will call you will be "deportees" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 05 Oct 21 - 03:08 PM "I detest the term ‘illegal immigrants’. It’s a meaningless dog-whistle term used by racists and Right-Wing media quite deliberately, with the intention to turn public opinion against a group of largely desperate and endangered people fleeing the danger of violence or death." People putting their lives at risk by making dangerous crossings of the English Channel do not appear to be 'fleeing the danger of violence or death'. They are trying to move from one 'safe' country, France, to another, England. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 11:54 AM "I detest the term ‘illegal immigrants’. It’s a meaningless dog-whistle term used by racists and Right-Wing media quite deliberately, with the intention to turn public opinion against a group of largely desperate and endangered people fleeing the danger of violence or death." I couldn't agree more with this. I've taken issue with yanks on the use of the word "illegals" as a noun. Calling a human being "illegal" is as dehumanising and, in this context as racist (as we use the term for "foreigners" only) as calling them any of those other names that we like to type as mostly asterisks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Rain Dog Date: 05 Oct 21 - 11:41 AM Just been listening to the following programme on BBC Radio 4, which will be available on playback. 100 years of Exile Who is a refugee? 100 Years of Exile Episode 1 of 3 It is 100 years since a civil war caused a refugee crisis on Europe's borders and the appointment of the first High Commissioner for refugees. Today, as a series of refugee crises roils European politics, Katy Long presents a series examining what the century in between has taught us all about how to deal with a refugee crisis. Across three episodes, Katy will examine how refugee crises start, what it is like to be a refugee, how the business of supporting refugees has changed (and grown), and how refugee crises end. She speaks to refugees and former refugees, to those who work with them and to the politicians who decide what will become of them. In this first episode, about how refugee crises start, Katy will examine how the definition of a refugee has changed. Covering Russia, Rwanda and Syria, she'll consider how international agreements, legal texts and political pressures have shaped public and political understanding of who refugees are, and what they are owed. Producer: Giles Edwards Assistant Producer: George Dabby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Backwoodsman Date: 05 Oct 21 - 11:10 AM “Talk, talk, talk yet people continue to arrive by illegal means” The means by which a migrant arrives is not subject to judgment over legality. It is not ‘illegal’ to arrive by small boat any more than arriving on a ferry or in an aircraft. The issue of ‘legality’ revolves around the person’s right to come here, and on them having declared their arrival to the UK Immigration authorities, not the means by which they arrive. I detest the term ‘illegal immigrants’. It’s a meaningless dog-whistle term used by racists and Right-Wing media quite deliberately, with the intention to turn public opinion against a group of largely desperate and endangered people fleeing the danger of violence or death. I would propose ‘Irregular migration’ as a more accurate, considerably less inflammatory, term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Rain Dog Date: 05 Oct 21 - 10:54 AM I think that is highly unlikely that any vessels will be pushed back. It is just talk, down to the frustration of finding that there is no easy solution to the 'problem'. Talk, talk, talk yet people continue to arrive by illegal means. Neither the French or Uk authorities have the means to patrol the coastline in order to catch the vessels as they set off. However, you might think that they have the means to target the gangs who are providing this service. Does anyone think that drug smugglers could act so freely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Nigel Parsons Date: 05 Oct 21 - 10:14 AM If border force employees obey orders push back asylum seekers they would be committing an offense under international law, Not being an expert in international maritime law, may I ask what law would be being broken? Also, does the same law prevent the French from pushing the boats 'forward'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 05 Oct 21 - 09:42 AM If border force employees obey orders push back asylum seekers they would be committing an offense under international law, and would need to be brought to justice. Carrying out their job in accordance with government instructions is no defense and must never be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 09:32 AM sets |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 09:31 AM She's great, isn't she. Here's a bit of a speech from someone who I regard as far from great: Freedom to protest is a fundamental right our party will forever fight to uphold. But it must be within the law. Measures already going through parliament will ensure these criminals can be brought to justice for the disruption they are causing. But we are going further to close down the legal loopholes exploited by these offenders. So today I can announce I will also increase the maximum penalties for disrupting a motorway; criminalise interference with key infrastructure such as roads, railways and our free press; and give the police and courts new powers to deal with the small minority of offenders intent on travelling around the country, causing disruption and misery across our communities. So Priti is calling people "criminals" and "offenders" who haven't been convicted of a crime. She agrees that we all have a right to protest, but is bringing in new laws to make sure that we can't. Isn't she just lovely. Oh, and there's renewed talk of turning small boats back that are halfway across the Channel, just as the stormy season serifs in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: DMcG Date: 05 Oct 21 - 08:59 AM I have admitted before that, when she is on form, I like Marina Hyde's articles. This one had me laughing out loud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 21 - 04:12 AM "Prime Minister - STOP...TALKING!" Nice one, Nick Robinson (of whom I'm no fan as it happens)! That one will definitely go down in the annals! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 04 Oct 21 - 02:55 PM Binzo, you are confusing Angela Raynor with thatcher. Why do you have a problem with scum being called what the are? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Oct 21 - 07:51 AM More from the scum |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Bonzo3legs Date: 03 Oct 21 - 12:50 PM Absolutely |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Oct 21 - 12:33 PM ...Sez the man who idolises Thatcher. Oh, the irony! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Bonzo3legs Date: 03 Oct 21 - 12:15 PM Angela Rayner is nothing but a loud mouthed cow, an evil woman if ever there was one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Dave the Gnome Date: 03 Oct 21 - 10:18 AM I said a bit back that PR was only chance Labour had to gain power and this Guardian opinion sums it up far better than I could. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Oct 21 - 02:47 PM And, after that, and all the other stuff he's said about flag-waving piccaninnies with watermelon smiles, Muslim women looking like letterboxes or bank robbers, gay men as bumboys in tank tops, we have confected outrage over Angela Rayner calling him scum. It might not have been her best tactical move, but begod it was accurate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Dave the Gnome Date: 02 Oct 21 - 09:01 AM I was talking about a disregard for people on another thread. BoJo has shown his true colours yet again From this interview I’ve given you the most important metric – never mind life expectancy, never mind cancer outcomes – look at wage growth Once again the Tory leader shows that he believes money is more important than people. How some otherwise caring people can continue to support him is beyond me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 21 - 05:28 PM From Priti Patel on Twitter: "Every woman should feel safe to walk on our streets without fear of harassment or violence." But it's OK if they don't feel safe on a dinghy when they're threatened with being turned back halfway across the Channel... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 21 - 04:08 PM Here's a great comment from a Guardian reader in response to an article about Starmer and the conference. I agree with every word: The right of the Party which had their knives out for Corbyn from the getgo, despite him leading a broad church party reflected in his cabinet which Starmer cannot bring himself to do. The right of the Party, many of whom were pursuing and openly campaigning for a Tory victory in the extremely close fought 2017 election. Now the same right of the Party calls desperately for “unity” as it finds that its “kick the left” platform has even less appeal across the country as a whole than the bold centre-left Labour manifesto offered in 2017. Corbyn was no leader, but he was a principled left winger who tried hard to get people to vote for a transformative left wing programme, and in 2017 came very, very close to succeeding. I’ve no idea what Starmer is and neither does the country it seems. That is spot on. The contributor could have enlarged on what he or she said by pointing to all those "centrists" who petulantly refused to serve in Jeremy's shadow cabinet, and to all those scumbags who crawled out of the woodwork to confect a fake antisemitism campaign against him. They all clearly thought that it was worth condemning him to an election defeat in order to get him out. It must have really annoyed them that it took two goes. I note that there's a warm welcome back into the party for the utterly obnoxious Louise Ellman, allegedly "forced out of the party"...Like bollix she was. As they say, grr... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 21 - 11:39 AM Starmer was talking to the party within the conference bubble, very little to the country. All hope will be erased by the end of next week, by which time the Boris hubris will have been fully restored. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Sep 21 - 10:38 AM Keir Starmer's dad was a toolmaker. In a way, so was Boris Johnson's... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Sep 21 - 03:50 PM be fine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Sep 21 - 01:32 PM Under him, they are. But never underestimate the left. We never go away. I've already noticed "calls for unity." That means "go away, inconvenient lefties." It would all fine (relatively) if he was any use. But he isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: punkfolkrocker Date: 28 Sep 21 - 01:25 PM My wife's school academy has removed the school Union Rep's entitlement to use working hours for Union business. At the same time as using any petty flimsy reasons to pressurise older higher paid teachers into taking 'early retirement'. What was once supposed to be a caring workplace is now a toxic environment. All the union can do is acquiesce to this ruthless regime and advise the 'victims' on their least painful method of exit.. "Best not complain or resist, if you want a good reference"... ========== Btw.. sir keer's ambition to be PM at any cost.. Are Labour now effectively the liberals or tory wets...???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics From: Steve Shaw Date: 28 Sep 21 - 12:52 PM Well, Raindog, trade unions are generally organised on democratic principles. True, turnout in union elections is low and that reflects lack of interest in union matters from members. Since Thatcher emasculated the unions, with Blair following behind enthusiastically, unions are generally perceived to be impotent. Year after year of governments ignoring pay review bodies and imposing pay freezes has gone virtually unchallenged by anything other than words. Big and small companies can cheerfully refuse to recognise trade unions. Blame the unions for failing to update themselves by all means, and I might in part agree with you, but this unhealthy situation has led to horrors such as zero-hours contracts, no job security, full-time working couples unable to afford the rent, burgeoning food banks and the rest, all led by right-wing union-bashing ideology. Strong unions are a sign of a healthy nation. And we're not all Red Robbos. I've been a trade unionist all my life (still am, at 70) and I've seen how tough it is to resist the ruthless forces of that ideology. Working class people need strong trade unions. |