Don't you need a trade to be a trade union member?
Most youths nowadays have no hope of job!
Robert Webb versus Russell Brand Page 6
Quote: AngieBaby @ October 31 2013, 10:52 PM GMTDon't you need a trade to be a trade union member?
Most youths nowadays have no hope of job!
No, you can become an unemployed member of some unions. But if you don't want to pay the dues (as pro-union as I am, I'm not even a union member because I hate spending money and I don't have much of it), you can join other free organisations and campaign groups/become part of action and demonstrations.
Quote: sootyj @ October 31 2013, 10:39 PM GMTA massive project like the NHS involved all sorts of compromises, not least of all acknowledging that senior medics intended to make even more money out of health then they were before.
But it was worth it, wasn't it
"Stuffing their pockets with gold," wasn't it?
Was that worth it? Just created more vested interests, resulting in a massive, bloated, loathsome system that seems to fail just as many as it helps, at OBSCENE cost, with little chance of the true reform it needs to drag it into the late 20th Century, never mind the 21st.
Most of them will get a job, just not the job they want. Youth career expectations is a most complex conundrum, not least of all there's a lot of graduates who are going to end up cutting grass or flipping burgers, because there's simply so many of them.
Quote: Aaron @ October 31 2013, 10:50 PM GMTthe despicable, poisonous post-war consensus that Margaret Thatcher smashed
I feel that smashed is the operative word. That aside, there are two things here. One is choice. The other is efficiency. Little choice plus little efficiency equals bleak. That's why people want more choice. Why did people not want the late 1950s consensus of Butskellism? Actually they did. Nearly 90% voted Lab or Con.
One thing we really need is the reintroduction of true history. The mantra is that 1979 was the Year Zero. A bit like punk rock in 1977. In the latter case, all music beforehand was alleged to have been poor. In the former, everything earlier in politics IS the dreadful 70s. Well, it wasn't. There was a 40s, 50s and a 60s. Some of it felt pretty good. As for even earlier times, for they too existed, thank the Lord for Lloyd George.
The 'don't vote it only encourages them' argument only really works in relation to Britain's Got Talent.
Quote: Stylee TingTing @ October 31 2013, 10:56 PM GMTThey're all effing sheep.. and the wolves piss all over 'em.
Does that result in a Golden Fleece?
Quote: Aaron @ October 31 2013, 10:54 PM GMT"Stuffing their pockets with gold," wasn't it?
Was that worth it? Just created more vested interests, resulting in a massive, bloated, loathsome system that seems to fail just as many as it helps, at OBSCENE cost, with little chance of the true reform it needs to drag it into the late 20th Century, never mind the 21st.
The dark secret about the NHS is maybe 5-10 years later the rest of europe started their integrated health systems.
And France, Holland pretty much all went for compulsory health insurance, paying for private companies. And year on year they've out performed the NHS.
The NHS is a better alternative to the current US system, but its not all that it could be.
Quote: Tursiops @ October 31 2013, 10:57 PM GMTDoes that result in a Golden Fleece?
Booyah
Quote: sootyj @ October 31 2013, 10:55 PM GMTMost of them will get a job, just not the job they want. Youth career expectations is a most complex conundrum, not least of all there's a lot of graduates who are going to end up cutting grass or flipping burgers, because there's simply so many of them.
Yeah this point is largely ignored.
I know it's very unGuardian of me but it kind of annoys me when people complain they can't get the job they want straight away, as well. Graduates have a better chance of a job than those without degrees, and the truth is you have to fight for more suitable work. I did rather well at university, even if I do say so myself, and I was on minimum wage for years while working outside of my job to get a better-paid job (because I'm a writer, innit, and everybody wants to be a writer). What annoys me is unpaid internships/work experience, which just allows the middle class to get ahead of the rest of us without half the fight.
But that's another argument.
If the youth want a fairer chance at jobs they should fight a system that means how much money you have still has a real impact on your standard of work, if you ask me.
Quote: sglen @ October 31 2013, 10:50 PM GMTBut you don't need to raise money to stand as trade union leader, like you do in politics. There is nothing stopping anyone from standing. So why don't they just stand if they don't like it? If they don't get voted in, maybe it's because they have been outvoted?
Those people have joined the union for reasons other than politics as they don't appear to be engaging in the far-more-democratic-than-government politics of the union. Trade unions tend to be left-wing (though not all are). For that reason, they tend to have left-wing policies. However, these policies are voted on at Conference every year. The leaders don't just make them up. Members put forth policies and they are voted on. They can be voted out, and some are.
And the people who are reading the Daily Mail are probably part of a trade union because of all the benefits afforded to them for being so - such as free legal protection. They have the right and an institutional procedure in place to oppose the politics of the union if they want.
They also have the right to complain to the Certification Officer about their union. It was recently found that something like 0.001% have bothered.
The numbers seemed to suggest there were far more members of such ilk than your 'not real trade unionists' argument implies.
Indeed, the broadly right-wing voting patterns of the populus as a whole over the last 50 years would suggest people often aren't in-line with these hard-line leftists. Especially if unions are apparently representative of the public.
Either way - that's all still broadly the same problem as we're discussing with national politics: that there are great numbers of people who are disengaged and not minded to become involved in finding a solution. They just moan from the sidelines and rules themselves out of making any change.
Quote: Tursiops @ October 31 2013, 10:56 PM GMTThe 'don't vote it only encourages them' argument only really works in relation to Britain's Got Talent.
Maybe politics needs to become more like BGT!
Put the politicians on prime time TV on a Saturday, give the public the chance to vote. We've only ourselves to blame then.
Quote: sootyj @ October 31 2013, 10:58 PM GMTThe dark secret about the NHS is maybe 5-10 years later the rest of europe started their integrated health systems.
And France, Holland pretty much all went for compulsory health insurance, paying for private companies. And year on year they've out performed the NHS.
The NHS is a better alternative to the current US system, but its not all that it could be.
A pig with a pair of underpants tied to the end of a muddy stick is a better alternative to the current US system. 
It's pretty scary debate-blocking when pro-NHS campaigners present the US model as the only alternative, isn't it? Scum.
Quote: Aaron @ October 31 2013, 11:00 PM GMTThe numbers seemed to suggest there were far more members of such ilk than your 'not real trade unionists' argument implies.
I didn't intend to suggest they weren't really trade unionists. I meant to suggest they were in a trade union for the work-related benefits rather than political side, which most people are, to be fair.
Quote: Aaron @ October 31 2013, 11:00 PM GMTthat's all still broadly the same problem as we're discussing with national politics: that there are great numbers of people who are disengaged and not minded to become involved in finding a solution. They just moan from the sidelines and rules themselves out of making any change.
That's exactly it. As I was saying, you don't just vote for a rep in trade unions, you actually personally vote on individual policy, so you have a huge amount of control compared with national government. If trade unions are unrepresentative then the problem is apathy and it is possibly that the trade unionists you are referring to are less interested in politics. Most people aren't interested in politics, really.
This is what you actually get when you vote for none of the above.
Quote: AngieBaby @ October 31 2013, 11:01 PM GMTMaybe politics needs to become more like BGT!
Put the politicians on prime time TV on a Saturday, give the public the chance to vote. We've only ourselves to blame then.
But that's....that's exactly how it works...unless you're suggesting they should perform tricks?