I'm sorry you feel that way, I used to have a lot of time and respect for you, as you used to put a lot of time, effort and work into your posts. We've only started to butt heads recently as you seem to have moved ever further away from rational debate and into the trap of resorting to fallacies, insults and insinuations (as in this post) in lieu of good debate. You used to be able to change my mind on things by presenting good, evidence based arguments, where has that Maustin gone?
Good old Serwotka.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
I'm sorry you feel that way, I used to have a lot of time and respect for you, as you used to put a lot of time, effort and work into your posts. We've only started to butt heads recently as you seem to have moved ever further away from rational debate and into the trap of resorting to fallacies, insults and insinuations (as in this post) in lieu of good debate. You used to be able to change my mind on things by presenting good, evidence based arguments, where has that Maustin gone?
Repeatedly referencing a single source isn't really helping your case. Krugman sits apart from a lot of other economists, including other winners of the Nobel prize, in his beliefs as to what the correct course to take is. Just because you agree with him doesn't change that.
How many of these 'other' economists predict the fiscal mess we are in today like Krugman did many years ago?
Krugman knows his stuff and as time goes by he keeps getting it right, his knowledge and expertise in this field is second to none.
Your deluded if you think his wrong and your right!
This would be the same Krugman that praised Gordon Brown, the chief architect of the UK's public spending crisis who ran a primary deficit throughout a boom and topped it up with lots of off book spending via PFI and massive increases in pension commitments due to increasing the public sector by 1million employees?
If he was such a visionary, why wasn't he calling for fiscal responsibility during the boom? He may be right in that the best thing to do now would be to turn the spending taps on, but only if you ignore the risks in doing that due to the incredibly dodgy behaviour that went on before that.
And again, you're still relying on one voice and ignoring the large number of equally qualified dissenters. The IMF, for example, was warning from 2002 onwards that Brown's spending plans were going to put the UK in a dangerous position when the inevitable bust came...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
This is true for any economist. Put two in a room and you'll get 3 opinions etc.
There is a simple solution to all this (without removing the usefulness of unions). Force unions to apply for a court order to allow them to strike... Using an independent body to analyse the evidence from both sides rather than two highly charged groups. The system is obviously not working at the moment in some industries that know they can strangle the country and blackmail organisations into bending to their whims, for example the Underground unions who are forever striking over extra pay and conditions*.
Provide a good reason to an unbiased third party and you can strike. Unfortunately many unions would never agree to all that as most of their arguments stem from "we want more money!", even if that means bankrupting the company they work for.
*And the H&S argument, which so rarely actually involves any real H&S, because that is covered by law.
Provide a good reason to an unbiased third party and you can strike. Unfortunately many unions would never agree to all that as most of their arguments stem from "we want more money!", even if that means bankrupting the company they work for.
*And the H&S argument, which so rarely actually involves any real H&S, because that is covered by law.
57.2% of people voted for, quoting 11.2% is just misleading. In any vote, only the people who choose to vote get counted. The same happens in political elections and votes. I'd note for example that laws can be passed in this country by just 40 MPs, a parliamentary turn out of just 6.2%!
In any case, a strike can only be as effective as the proportion of the workers who actually go on strike.
If you quote it out of context like that so you can make a snarky post then yes it is misleading. Your point was made on the previous page, it was made better too. My point was out of all of the people in the union only 11% voted for the strike. I wasn't trying to imply that 89% voted against it - which is obvious except when you quote me out of context days later.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,959
By the end of the Olympics I doubt a single tourist will want to come back to or travel to the UK for a holiday. What a joke.
Chin up! It won't be as bad as that. It's the principle I'm railing against, not the real potential to ruin the olympics.
How, exactly, was it out of context?
It's still a deliberately misleading tactic; votes are universally counted out of those who vote.
My point, and it was obvious in the context of the first page a couple of days ago was that out of all of the members only 11% had voted for the strike, 89% had not voted for the strike - yes it was a clear majority in favour of it but only 11% in total had voted for it. That's all. Stop trying to make it into something else.
And your use of the word tactic makes me wonder if you think this is a debating competition. It's not. And anyone who thinks it is will go on my ignore. It's a discussion, not a context to see if you can win an argument regardless if you're right or wrong.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
PCS won - strike called off 
800 new jobs for the Border Agency, 300 for the passport service and significant movement by the government on a lot of other issues.
800 new jobs for the Border Agency, 300 for the passport service and significant movement by the government on a lot of other issues.
PCS won - strike called off
800 new jobs for the Border Agency, 300 for the passport service and significant movement by the government on a lot of other issues.
As I understand it, no agreement has been finalised yet. The strike was called off as a result of progress made during peace talks (it's amazing how many strikes get called off when the government actually bother to talk to the unions).
If so that's a hell of a leap of faith by the PCS, what's to stop the government going back on their agreement after the Olympics when Britain's crumbling infrastructure isn't so visible. With the current government in place I'm not so sure I'd be willing to trust them not to do that.
300 'existing' vacancies in the passport agency.
800 Jobs, government say they do not recognise that figure and dispute the numbers.
PCS realised that they probably could not carry the strike with their members and the public would not support them.
If I was asked to strike based on 11% in favour, I would tell the union where to go and turn in for work.
800 Jobs, government say they do not recognise that figure and dispute the numbers.
PCS realised that they probably could not carry the strike with their members and the public would not support them.
If I was asked to strike based on 11% in favour, I would tell the union where to go and turn in for work.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
You're right there though
It's not that big a leap - you'll see when the details start leaking out
Existing vacancies that the agency had no intention of filling
Rhetoric - just the government coming out with the normal "we haven't been beaten" bull.
We'll never know will we
I take it you actively protest when MP's or councilors get elected into office on a similar number then?
Last edited by a moderator:
PCS won - strike called off
800 new jobs for the Border Agency, 300 for the passport service and significant movement by the government on a lot of other issues.
That's not what was in the papers yesterday... The government specifically stated nothing had changed and that the union had backed down due to the massive negative backlash from the public (which there was).