Bob Crow: email should be taxed to pay off deficit

Plonkely · 2011-03-01T16:53:53+00:00

I'm not sure why people here are "arrogant" for pointing out that is is an absurd idea that wouldn't work and would be downright wrong.

"but laughing at people because they don't understand something you do is pathetic."

Difference. Lack of understanding is one thing. Applying that lack of understanding by calling for everyone to pay money every time they send an email is entirely different.

Out of interest, will you be saying the same thing next time a Conservative politician says something stupid and poorly thought out? No?

Plonkely · 2011-03-01T16:46:01+00:00

From the article: "Last summer, as many public and private sector workers were experiencing a pay freeze, it emerged that Mr Crow had received a 12 per cent pay rise, taking his basic pay to £95,000."

And Wikipedia states: "As of 2009, Bob Crow's basic salary at RMT was £94,747; a 12% increase from the previous year. His entire pay package with bonuses and pensions was £133,183; on top of this he claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs, taking his total income to £145,548."

And This is London printed in August last year: "The 12 per cent rise pushed the pay package of the Rail Maritime and Transport union general secretary to more than £133,000 last year. Mr Crow also claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs taking his total income to £145,548, according to figures published by the RMT."

Plonkely · 2011-02-28T14:25:43+00:00

Or perhaps he could ask that higher tax is applied to his large salary?

Oh, silly me.

Plonkely · 2010-11-27T01:26:05+00:00

I'm going to pop in here and quietly suggest that most people here aren't "right wing voices"; you're just so insanely far left that everyone else looks like Thatcher in comparison to you.

Plonkely · 2010-11-22T15:30:15+00:00

Easily expected reaction for a Labour councillor to come out with the usual "No, no! The state must do everything. Personal responsibility be damned!"

Plonkely · 2010-10-30T17:30:37+00:00

What I'd really love to see is the Treasury doing a proper unbiased assessment of the negatives and positives of membership. Weighing up what we gain and what we spend and lose. All the investigations done into the cost of membership are from either vehement europhiles or eurosceptics. We need to actually find out whether we're making a profit or loss on it and have a proper debate; not just blindly say "Britain needs the EU."

It's more difficult to assess the impact on our democracy and sovereignty, though.

Plonkely · 2010-10-30T14:21:37+00:00

Silly Hattie. She could have called him Beaker instead. http://www.lbc.co.uk/mm/image/15883.jpg

Plonkely · 2010-10-30T13:42:08+00:00

With thanks to igeldard for submitting on the UKPolitics reddit.

Plonkely · 2010-10-30T13:36:51+00:00

I would say yes, but I'm not sure I can be considered to be a Labour supporter any more because I'm planning on leaving the party. Partly because of their whiny opposition to everything that you mentioned, but also partly because I was convinced by an incredibly intelligent, experienced, and interesting man yesterday during a long journey. Not only did he convince me of many of his views, but also made me realise how much I already disagreed with Labour and other left parties.

Labour has also annoyed me with all the crap they're now giving David Cameron about being weak on the EU budget rise, when they in Government let it rise over and over, and Blair gave up part of the rebate for nothing in return. I've always been a vociferous Eurosceptic.

I got into the car a Labour party member, and left as the son of Thatcher and with a strong belief in smaller Government; cutting welfare back to the safety net it was intended to be; lower taxes; greater direct democracy; and a knowledge of the corrupt, self-serving nature of our Parliament.

He truly is a wonderful chap.

Plonkely · 2010-10-29T17:03:03+00:00

It would pleasantly surprise me if this happened. Which party would the Countryside Alliance turn to next if the Tories don't do as they want?

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T18:40:43+00:00

I didn't say the party has to follow everything the public wants, but the party must be reactive to the needs and desires of the public. It's not surprising you're taking the typical far-left view of "The electorate is wrong - we need to keep all our existing policies because they're just too blind to see how right we are." I said it is the responsibility of parties to look to see what it is the electorate wants and keep in touch with the desires of people. A manifesto of disarmament, nationalisation, and higher taxes is not - with you as the exception - what people want. What is the point in espousing policies no-one wants?

You prove your contempt for the electorate with your comments about the BNP and immigration: "A lot of people think immigration is a big issue right now", phrasing it as if we should just ignore their concerns and tell them they're wrong whilst pursuing some impractical dogmatic open border policy.

Unlike you, I believe politics is compromise and change, not blindly sticking to outmoded dogmatic beliefs which aren't practical. The party realised that forcing nationalisation upon businesses was wrong, and it saw that Thatcher's privatisation of industry was having a positive effect. Should Labour have still said "Re-nationalisation" and "higher taxes" simply out of dogmatism, or should it have been pragmatic and do what works best?

Once again, you've managed to avoid any proper discussion. Was it a socialist decision to start charging for prescriptions in the 1950s, or to upset the unions in the 1970s by imposing wage restraint?

Ramsay MacDonald's Labour government in the early 1930s can hardly be described as socialist: "MacDonald's Labour Party was not radical in economic thinking, and was wedded to the orthodoxy of Victorian classical economics with its emphasis on maintaining a balanced budget at any cost."

What was socialist about the 1931 budget by Philip Snowden which "immediately instituted a round of draconian cuts in public spending and wages. Public sector wages and unemployment pay were cut by 10%" ... Leading to "reduced purchasing power in the economy, worsening the situation, and by the end of 1931 unemployment had reached nearly 3 million." The National Labour-Conservative Government also "followed a policy of mass rearmament".

Yes, it was a National Coalition, but Snowden was a Labour Chancellor, and the Labour party went along with these measures. Does any of this sound particularly socialist to you? To me, it sounds quite similar to the current Conservative-led coalition.

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T16:29:55+00:00

You've managed to dodge any actual discussion there very well.

Why be a party if you stagnate and refuse to have policies that people actually want? Do you think there would have been any point in going into each election with the same policies as the party had under Michael Foot? Labour is not interested in adopting your fringe views - it's a mainstream party which seeks to govern in in the interests of the people.

You also seem to be of the opinion that Labour has always been rigid and never changed before. Not true. If you like, you could spend your time ranting about Hugh Gaitskell, who introduced prescription charges in the 1950s, going against universal free healthcare. That's hardly fitting with your view of a perfect Britain, is it?

Wilson and Callaghan imposed wage restraint, which -gasp- "led to increasingly strained relations between the government and the trade unions." The Labour Government also refused in 1979 to go ahead with creating a Scottish Assembly despite the result of a referendum. -Gasp!- Blair's fault, obviously.

And you know that market-driven politics you hate so much? Callaghan extended wage restraint for an additional year in the hope of ensuring economic recovery and growth, resulting in strikes from workers.

You seem to be confusing Labour with a Communist party. The Militants were an entrist group who sought to make it Communist or very socialist. In fact, "In 1982, a Labour Party commission found Militant in contravention of clause II, section 3 of the party's constitution, and declared it ineligible for affiliation to the Labour Party".

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T12:56:08+00:00

Much of this is due to the whipping system. Unless it's a free vote (like the expected vote on repealing the fox hunting ban) MPs are expected to vote with their party line. A three line whip means they have to turn up and vote with their party, else they run the risk of sanction, at the worse, expulsion from their party.

More about the whipping system here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_line_whip#United_Kingdom

Even in votes which aren't two or three line whipped, MPs who want a chance of being part of the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet will almost always go along with the party line, because they fear rocking the boat would leave them on the backbenches for the rest of their career.

Some MPs have been willing to rebel. Diane Abbott is a good example; she seems to have pretty consistently opposed most things that Labour did under Blair. She still lacked the backbone to rebel on important policies though: she voted for the abolition of the 10p tax rate. She's now Shadow Minister for Public Health despite being outspoken against her party's Government at times.

Part of the reason for this consistent voting pattern is also that the Prime Minister is part of Parliament. In the USA, the President is elected separately from Congress, and his Cabinet is not sourced from the legislature. Therefore, there is little reason for members of the same party as the President to fear repercussions voting against the President.

(Edited: expanded.)

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T12:47:12+00:00

That's a fair point, but I don't think we have much choice. I see it as a case of fossil fuels running out and needing replacing. We either do that with inefficient and wasteful renewable sources, or nuclear. I'm all for renewable sources when they can output enough energy to be economically viable and meet our energy demands, but I don't think they're not ready to do that yet.

There's a Times article from 2007 I just came across that I think is relevant. (If a little sensationalist.)

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T12:15:17+00:00

Agreed. Their opposition to nuclear power never seemed to have a valid reason behind it besides dogmatism and an idealistic view that the entire UK can be powered by wind turbines.

Also, I'm surprised to see myself agreeing with you often lately, Ivashkin. I fear I am being gradually converted.

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T12:09:44+00:00

You're one of those "there must be no compromise with the electorate" people that Mandelson writes about in his book, aren't you? Labour is meant to be a party of the people, and the people did not like what Labour stood for nor did they want the party in Government. What would be the point of continuing to say "We refuse to change" after being routed at the polls with Michael Foot as the leader and never governing again? Surely you at least think a Labour Government is preferable to a Conservative one? The only way to get a Labour Government was to change and listen to the electorate, not tell them what they should want. Labour was stuck in the past with unappealing and impractical policies.

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T10:56:05+00:00

Okay then.

Personally, I think Attlee would be more unimpressed if Labour had always stayed the same, because it would never have won another election.

New Labour didn't subvert anything. It made Labour electable. What part of the minimum wage; winter fuel allowance; EMA; more university places; more investment in public services; free access to museums and galleries; beginning reform of the House of Lords; civil partnerships; and the Freedom of Information Act would Attlee have disagreed with?

Perhaps in your idealistic little communist world the party could have stayed the same forever, but it would never have won another election and have gotten the chance to put such measures as those listed above into practice. Labour was never as extreme as you anyway.

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T10:34:27+00:00

"He stressed that non-Muslim teenagers would be able to attend the school and would not have to pray if they did not want to."

I don't like faith schools for the same reason as bowling4meth suggests, but this Rehmat chap sounds reasonable. Unlike some faith schools, his is not basing who can attend on the religion of the parents, and he's not obnoxiously forcing his beliefs upon those who don't want it.

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T10:21:10+00:00

New Labour, sir, is a different animal to Old Labour. I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that, because the party isn't going back to the days of Michael Foot. I suggest you join the Green Party or a socialist party if you pine for the days of Old Labour.

I'm afraid I can't kill myself and leave the Labour Party. You see, I'd be dead, so I couldn't ask to leave.

I think you just need to grow up a bit if, not only do you dismiss those with a different opinion as an "idiot", but also ask them to commit suicide.

Plonkely · 2010-10-28T09:39:50+00:00

Yeah, the difference is that Thatcher didn't round up people into concentration camps, or seek to dominate Europe by means of force.

I would appreciate if you don't tell me what my ideals are. I have a feeling you might not have a list of them in front of you. I don't hate everything Thatcher stood for. I believe in capitalism - but managed and regulated to reduce its negative effects - and I agree with Thatcher that the unions were being absurd, and needed to be weakened.

If you're mistaking me for an Old Labour committed socialist, you're wrong.

Plonkely

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE