Topic: Do you support the strikes?

[ianburns252]

Nationalisation shouldn't be about ownership of the means of production. It should be about guaranteeing the delivery of essential services. No one other than the ideological left gives a toss about the former. The latter is the argument that most people can identify with.

I think the terminology is outdated and you have hit the nail on the head with the rephrasing.

In the grand scheme of things - what production is there to seize? The UK is a service based country and unless you plan to nationalise the remaining coal mines (how many even are there?) and the oil rigs (which considering we should be trying to fund green production rather than buy up fossil seems daft) which people surely see as a waste of time, then continuing to use the phrase makes you seem out of touch with reality - which is how the left are often described by the (admittedly biased) right wing elements of the media.

So yes, it is about the provision of service these days. It needs to own any past failures, acknowledge the improvements privatisation has provided but then come down hard with where the balance tipped from improving what was on offer to profits for shareholders.

It is not about going back to the 70s but about learning from the experience of both a nationalised era and a privatised era and using that to do nationalisation 2.0

[Kenny's Jacket]

Nationalisation has been used by extreme right-wing regimes too, especially where energy is concerned. Saudi Aramco isn't a socialist company for example. And let's not forget that Winston Churchill was an early nationaliser of oil.

I hadnt thought of that,  I was focused on British nationalisation, but yes good example.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I think the idiocy of the RMT's line on Brexit was that it took the worst case scenario of what the European Union might conceivably be and claimed that was representative of what it is (ie a capitalist club). It then took the best case scenario of what Brexit might entail and claimed that was likely to materialise if the UK left Europe (ie a socialist paradise). Then it asked its members to choose the paradise option.

It was so unworldly. Kind of insane really given the current balance of class forces in the UK.

I missed this post yesterday. Seems a reasonable and quite astute assessment

[Kenny's Jacket]

I don't think it's a small point, it's what it's all about really, ped together.

To give as recap.  You think Lynch's desire to Nationalise the railways does not come from a left wing reasons.  What Im not grasping is why, 

Why do you think he wants the railways nationalised and why isnt it left wing ?.

[Yorkykopite]

At the risk of being too generic, human greed drowns even the most noble intentioned ideology.

That's the problem with anything; some people at the top will eventually like it where they are and will do anything to stay there, common folk or hard workers be damned.

There is no doubt elements of Capitalism and Communism can/should work. Almost always though when implemented in real life, you factor human greed and the abuse then starts.

An odd post that. Capitalism makes no bones about needing human greed. It is not an "abuse" of the capitalist system, as you say, but a cherished motive force. Private vices/public benefits etc. So if your bleak view of human nature is true you ought to embrace it, work with the grain of humanity, and become a supporter of free-market capitalism. Perhaps you already are.

Fortunately it is not true, or wholly true at least, as history shows. Greed does not always predominate and civilisations evolve.

[Jiminy Cricket]

A economic crash would mean less money for services and the country as a whole and yeah that's one way of looking at it. saving the banks from collapsing prevented misery for millions so it was a decent thing to do but that was a short term solution to solve a serious problem rather than a argument for Nationalizing services.

The problem in that situation was that the bank was too large for the Government to allow to fail. The solution is to break up big banks and ensure they all have adequate reserves.

[oldfordie]

To give as recap.  You think Lynch's desire to Nationalise the railways does not come from a left wing reasons.  What Im not grasping is why, 

Why do you think he wants the railways nationalised and why isnt it left wing ?.

So the fact Lynch is a left winger who wants to Nationalize the Railways must mean all Nationalization has to be left wing. it's exactly the point I was making yesterday, depends on who makes the argument. has Lynch given his views on the NHS, we can be certain he supports the NHS. does that make everyone who supports the NHS a left winger as well.
Lynch hasn't just said he want's us to Nationalize the Railways, he's given a sound argument on what can be achieved if we do it, he's also talked about linking up the railways with bus services. it's about improving quality of life.

 Why isn't it left wing? for the reasons I mentioned yesterday, we have to move away from classing every decent policy that improves lives as left wing. it becomes left wing once people start talking about the means of production, Nationalizing factory's who produce goods. this shouldn't be about Ideology. left or right, it's about decency.
 
The Railways are a different service to Water. gas and Electricity, I don't think we could call them vital to life but they are vital in todays world , they also improve quality of life, I would of thought the left would be more for Nationalizing Buses rather than trains as well as I think people on lower wages and pensions are more likely to use a bus.
Ive left the Railways out of my posts for a reason. it's not the service I would base  the decency argument on, Gas. electric and water are vital to life, transport is vital in todays world and it also improves quality of life but Lynch has never touched on the left wings means of production so I think it's wrong to claim it's a left wing argument.

[gazzalfc]

Unite and GMB are voting on a new deal submitted by Arriva buses in Merseyside today and tomorrow. An agreement would stop the now 27th day of strike action.

The government have also agreed that the next inflationary rail fare rise next year will not be linked to this Junes RPI +1% which is the standard. If it had then fares would have risen 12.8%. The raise will also be pushed to 1st March rather than 2nd January.

[TipTopKop]

An odd post that. Capitalism makes no bones about needing human greed. It is not an "abuse" of the capitalist system, as you say, but a cherished motive force. Private vices/public benefits etc. So if your bleak view of human nature is true you ought to embrace it, work with the grain of humanity, and become a supporter of free-market capitalism. Perhaps you already are.

Fortunately it is not true, or wholly true at least, as history shows. Greed does not always predominate and civilisations evolve.

Greed does not always dictate what happens in life, hence my writing "almost always".

Civilisations were built on conquest and expansion, not all, but many. So did wars, and it's almost always about resources and domination. Again, not always, but it happens.

I can see why my post might be 'odd' to your cartoonish/comic book vision of good guys vs bad in this world.

[Yorkykopite]

Greed does not always dictate what happens in life, hence my writing "almost always".

No, not "almost always". Hence my calling yours a bleak view of human nature.

It's not an uncommon one though. As I said capitalism depends on it being true. If people wee "almost always" greedy then capitalism would have a completely free run and there'd probably be no anti-capitalism. It might even work as it is meant to work! But of course in real life - as we see throughout human history - there is a whole churn of characteristics and qualities in what we summarise as 'human nature'. The churn constantly throws up different combinations at different times, often in the same individual. It's kind of stupid to isolate just one of those qualities - greed - and say "This one! This is the one that counts."

The world is much more complex than you allow.

[Kenny's Jacket]

 Lynch has never touched on the left wings means of production so I think it's wrong to claim it's a left wing argument.

OK thanks.

[TipTopKop]

No, not "almost always". Hence my calling yours a bleak view of human nature...

The world is much more complex than you allow.

We are living in the days of that very greed. From invasions to companies making record profits while people starve and unsure of how they'll make it this winter. The world over.

Having a deep mistrust of governments and corporations does not equate to a bleak view of all of humanity.

There are plenty of well intentioned, honest people with altruistic morals, I would wager the majority of people would want some good in this world. They're not in charge.

You can talk all you want about anti capitalism and human nature, until that pure, virtuous ethos makes it into government, or the big corporations, the decision makers, then yeah, I'll continue to stand by my comments. "Almost Always" and then some.

Untrue? point me to a government or a decision maker that manages to avoid corruption, or some form of greed and continue to be allowed to do stay in power.

[Yorkykopite]

We are living in the days of that very greed. From invasions to companies making record profits while people starve and unsure of how they'll make it this winter. The world over.

Having a deep mistrust of governments and corporations does not equate to a bleak view of all of humanity.

You didn't say that. You said "human greed drowns even the most well-intentioned ideology." No mention of distrust of governments or corporations. Just human greed spoiling everything.

That's extremely bleak. It's simplistic. And it's certainly not true.

[TipTopKop]

Didn't think I needed to spell it out, that when discussing Capitalism or Communism I was referring to how governments implement them, rather than my local milkman.

[Red46]

An odd post that. Capitalism makes no bones about needing human greed. It is not an "abuse" of the capitalist system, as you say, but a cherished motive force. Private vices/public benefits etc. So if your bleak view of human nature is true you ought to embrace it, work with the grain of humanity, and become a supporter of free-market capitalism. Perhaps you already are.

Fortunately it is not true, or wholly true at least, as history shows. Greed does not always predominate and civilisations evolve.

I’m not surprised capitalism bigs up the need for greed, after all its an economic system build upon exploitation in some form or another.

[Snail]

Just hoping MIck doesn't have an opinion on the Islamist murder attempt on Sir Salman Rushdie. I have a feeling it will be another horrible right-wing one.

That's a very weird post.

[Yorkykopite]

That's a very weird post.

Thanks! I appreciate it coming from you.

[Wild Romany Boy]

That's a very weird post.

Par for the course.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Just hoping MIck doesn't have an opinion on the Islamist murder attempt on Sir Salman Rushdie. I have a feeling it will be another horrible right-wing one.

That's a very weird post.

That's a very weird post.

Par for the course.

No. What is weird are Mick Lynch's recent comments to the press. Perhaps you both are unaware of them!?

https://archive.ph/Y3Cho

[Red46]

That's a very weird post.
Par for the course.

No. What is weird are Mick Lynch's recent comments to the press. Perhaps you both are unaware of them!?

https://archive.ph/Y3Cho

What’s weird about them?

[Yorkykopite]

What’s weird about them?

Comparing the mass enslavement of the Uighurs in vast Chinese concentration camps with "slavery in Leicester" is beyond weird!

The obsession with "Nazis" in Ukraine while the country is being invaded by the armies of Fascist Russia is also the sign of a few loose screws.

Once he gets off trade-union struggles on to geopolitics Mick can be embarrassing.

[Jiminy Cricket]

What’s weird about them?

Did you even bother to read the article?

[oldfordie]

That's a very weird post.
Par for the course.

No. What is weird are Mick Lynch's recent comments to the press. Perhaps you both are unaware of them!?

https://archive.ph/Y3Cho

"I believe it's got to be a Union message first" then gives a long political interview that will only drive away support rather than win over people.

 Wouldn't mind but he looked untouchable during his TV interviews. batting away the personal attacks with ease the last few weeks .  Honeymoons over.

[Father Ted]

Who cares, he's a trade union leader? That's his role and his opinions on world affairs are irrelevant to that.

It's like quizzing the girl at the chippy if she's sufficiently ideologically committed to NATO before you'll let her serve you a bag of chips.

[ianburns252]

That's a very weird post.
Par for the course.

No. What is weird are Mick Lynch's recent comments to the press. Perhaps you both are unaware of them!?

https://archive.ph/Y3Cho

The talk of "Old Labour values" sounds very much like a move towards social conservatism and potentially a loss of the great strides society has made in terms of social policies over the last 20 years.

To an extent I can understand his comments re: FOM and how it may result in some countries having a deficit of experiences and skilled workers due to them moving to the UK where there are greater economic rewards for their work. It does feel a bit like a poor cover for protectionism though.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Who cares, he's a trade union leader? That's his role and his opinions on world affairs are irrelevant to that.

It's like quizzing the girl at the chippy if she's sufficiently ideologically committed to NATO before you'll let her serve you a bag of chips.

Yes. It is exactly like that!

[PaulF]

Who cares, he's a trade union leader? That's his role and his opinions on world affairs are irrelevant to that.

It's like quizzing the girl at the chippy if she's sufficiently ideologically committed to NATO before you'll let her serve you a bag of chips.

But is that like saying Boris' affairs aren't relevant to him running the country?

[Jiminy Cricket]

The talk of "Old Labour values" sounds very much like a move towards social conservatism and potentially a loss of the great strides society has made in terms of social policies over the last 20 years.

To an extent I can understand his comments re: FOM and how it may result in some countries having a deficit of experiences and skilled workers due to them moving to the UK where there are greater economic rewards for their work. It does feel a bit like a poor cover for protectionism though.

The interview was a shambles. The FOM stuff was not even the worst of it. As Oldfordie wrote, Lynch handled the media with great skill. But then he goes and gives an interview like that, full of nonsense (at best) and objectionable/appalling views (at worst).

[Father Ted]

But is that like saying Boris' affairs aren't relevant to him running the country?

He's not applying to run the country though. He's engaged in a trade union dispute, why he felt the need to go off on tangents and not steer the conversation back to the issue at hand is strategically questionable, but beyond that ... I just don't care sorry. I'm sure lots of people running lots of important things in this country have views that diverge from mine.

It smacks of people just looking for any excuse not to get behind him. Being cynical i'd guess that was part of the strategy from the New Statesman "our readers seem supportive of this struggle, let's see if we can't dig around and find a few things to get the melts up in arms..."

[Jiminy Cricket]

He's not applying to run the country though. He's engaged in a trade union dispute, why he felt the need to go off on tangents and not steer the conversation back to the issue at hand is strategically questionable, but beyond that ... I just don't care sorry. I'm sure lots of people running lots of important things in this country have views that diverge from mine.

It smacks of people just looking for any excuse not to get behind him. Being cynical i'd guess that was part of the strategy from the New Statesman "our readers seem supportive of this struggle, let's see if we can't dig around and find a few things to get the melts up in arms..."

Assuming this to be true, then Mick Lynch clearly failed the test, providing ammunition for those (in the media) who are against the strike.

But apart from that, some of his views and ideas are wholly objectionable.

[oldfordie]

The interview was a shambles. The FOM stuff was not even the worst of it. As Oldfordie wrote, Lynch handled the media with great skill. But then he goes and gives an interview like that, full of nonsense (at best) and objectionable/appalling views (at worst).

I knew he was changing tactics as he was shying away from the controversial personal political opinions  not long ago but am shocked by this interview, what has made him take this direction. I don't think there was any plan to win some popularity and then get the politics into the argument. I think others have seen him do well and look at him as a opportunity.

[oldfordie]

He's not applying to run the country though. He's engaged in a trade union dispute, why he felt the need to go off on tangents and not steer the conversation back to the issue at hand is strategically questionable, but beyond that ... I just don't care sorry. I'm sure lots of people running lots of important things in this country have views that diverge from mine.

It smacks of people just looking for any excuse not to get behind him. Being cynical i'd guess that was part of the strategy from the New Statesman "our readers seem supportive of this struggle, let's see if we can't dig around and find a few things to get the melts up in arms..."

Yes and when he was discussing wage rises and workers he was doing brilliantly, so you can say it's all unfair as much as you want but he will now have to talk and defend all his political views in future TV interviews, views  that will drive far more people away than win them over.
Union membership declined because Unions became too political. he has now gone political. I actually thought he understood this and admired him for it even though I knew some of his views.

[Yorkykopite]

I knew he was changing tactics as he was shying away from the controversial personal political opinions  not long ago but am shocked by this interview, what has made him take this direction. I don't think there was any plan to win some popularity and then get the politics into the argument. I think others have seen him do well and look at him as a opportunity.

The case for the RMT industrial action is a very strong one. That's the key thing. But it was also great to see it put with such skill by MIck Lynch. That's because presentation is important too.

But I wondered if he got carried away a bit? Or people around him - and not necessarily in the union - told him "You're great Mick. You could sell anything."?

But of course it's a myth that 'you can sell anything'. Presentation is important but ultimately it bumps up against the strength of the case you're hoping to sell. When Lynch moved into selling the idea that the EU provoked Putin's invasion of Ukraine he suddenly - and alarmingly - sounded like a crackpot. The same was true when he dismissed the genocide of the Uighurs and compared it to something that was going on in....in Leicester! The reasonable manner was still there but the words coming out of his mouth stank.

Now we have to hope that his weird meanderings don't dilute public support for the RMT strike. I really hope they don't. But he'll only have himself to blame if they do.

[Yorkykopite]

He's not applying to run the country though. He's engaged in a trade union dispute, why he felt the need to go off on tangents and not steer the conversation back to the issue at hand is strategically questionable, but beyond that ... I just don't care sorry. I'm sure lots of people running lots of important things in this country have views that diverge from mine.

It smacks of people just looking for any excuse not to get behind him. Being cynical i'd guess that was part of the strategy from the New Statesman "our readers seem supportive of this struggle, let's see if we can't dig around and find a few things to get the melts up in arms..."

That's not being cynical. That's being silly.

The words were voluntarily spoken by Mick Lynch. No traps were set, no misquoting took place, no cunning was required for him to make an arse of himself. He did it all by himself.

The general tone of the Statesman piece is supportive by the way.

[oldfordie]

The case for the RMT industrial action is a very strong one. That's the key thing. But it was also great to see it put with such skill by MIck Lynch. That's because presentation is important too.

But I wondered if he got carried away a bit? Or people around him - and not necessarily in the union - told him "You're great Mick. You could sell anything."?

But of course it's a myth that 'you can sell anything'. Presentation is important but ultimately it bumps up against the strength of the case you're hoping to sell. When Lynch moved into selling the idea that the EU provoked Putin's invasion of Ukraine he suddenly - and alarmingly - sounded like a crackpot. The same was true when he dismissed the genocide of the Uighurs and compared it to something that was going on in....in Leicester! The reasonable manner was still there but the words coming out of his mouth stank.

Now we have to hope that his weird meanderings don't dilute public support for the RMT strike. I really hope they don't. But he'll only have himself to blame if they do.

I think he has been influenced by people outside the union. a lot of things have been happening these last few weeks and you can see some of it in Lynches interview. my only thought was whether this was all planned weeks ago. doubt it. more like some have seen it as a opportunity and convinced him to use his popularity for their political aims.

[Kenny's Jacket]

He's not applying to run the country though. He's engaged in a trade union dispute, why he felt the need to go off on tangents and not steer the conversation back to the issue at hand is strategically questionable, but beyond that ... I just don't care sorry. I'm sure lots of people running lots of important things in this country have views that diverge from mine.

It smacks of people just looking for any excuse not to get behind him. Being cynical i'd guess that was part of the strategy from the New Statesman "our readers seem supportive of this struggle, let's see if we can't dig around and find a few things to get the melts up in arms..."

Having different views on the EU with regarding for example the effect of FOM on British Blue collar workers is fine.  Blaming the EU for Russia invading Ukraine not so much.

It wouldn't lower my support for his cause, but for others it might do.  He's intelligent enough to realise these opinions are controversial and having nothing to do with his cause. 

[Red46]

Having different views on the EU with regarding for example the effect of FOM on British Blue collar workers is fine.  Blaming the EU for Russia invading Ukraine not so much.

It wouldn't lower my support for his cause, but for others it might do.  He's intelligent enough to realise these opinions are controversial and having nothing to do with his cause.

Do you think Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine just came out of the blue, or do you think they have their reasons for doing so, however misguided those reasons may be.

[Yorkykopite]

"Misguided" 

[TepidT2O]

Fucking hell

[Nobby Reserve]

Do you think Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine just came out of the blue, or do you think they have their reasons for doing so, however misguided those reasons may be.

I think Russia's motivations are malevolent, with the finger-pointing at NATO/EU nothing more than a smokescreen for domestic consumption (to whip-up nationalism)

I do, however, increasingly think that at least a big part of Russia's motivation for invading Ukraine is to create economic chaos in Europe and 'the West'.