Indeed. It's little wonder the French & the Russians killed them. I'm surprised it wasn't more widespread.

Marx always believed Britain would be the focus of a workers' uprising. It may well have happened too had two world wars not ridden to the rescue of the ruling classes

Interesting, though, that at about the time Marx was writing, the British working class was quite effectively bought off by a ruling class that was intelligent enough to do it – so we never had an 1848, for instance.

Prussia/Germany is also an interesting contrast, since Bismarck created welfare for the first time. He was nobody's 'lefty', didn't want to see a repeat of 1848, so understood the consequences of simply battering the least well-off in society and acted to tackle that. And then you get the Churchill quote that, IIRC, Dave O posted a few days ago elsewhere about everyone having a living wage – again, hardly anyone's 'lefty'.

I think it reveals a number of things, including the utter arrogance of the supranational corporatocracy, and also how what was once considered decent even by pretty right-wing conservatives is now instantly slammed as 'left wing' – in other words, there has been a huge shift to the right in the last period.

We come back to the hypocrisy of those who spout Socialist values - McClusky talks about socialism and fairness - how fair is a final salary scheme for union employees funded by their members that will have no chance of such a benefit. That is the type of hypocrisy that gets 'socialists' a bad name. Ms Toynbee spouting about social inequality from her villa in Tuscany!!

N Power are going to outsource to India, what does the local Unison rep hark on about when he is interviewed - not process improvements to lower costs no, the chief exec is paid too much. That is the politics of envy.

I have on a number of threads suggested increasing the minimum wage by the 14% employers NI and removing the tax on employing people - as yet you have never commented on that. It seems to me you want employers to fork out the extra plus the additional tax on the extra - so what would you consider a reasonable return for any company to make?

You you have any other bloody tune no one mentioned unions.
What about answering those questions put to you on various threads.

You just stick to making serious false accusations about posters on here!! or have you erased that incident from your memory bank?

I didn't just mention the unions I did raise Ms Toynbee, I also raised the issue of employers NI and what would you consider a reasonable return for a commercial enterprise - did you struggle with those?

You know the longer he posts the more convinced I am that I was right...

You mentioned unions so let's respond to that.

Now, perhaps you'll answer the question of how much a "supposed socialist" should expect in pay. You didn't last time and dodged around it by providing half a definition of socialist, as though that came close to answering the question you won't answer. It didn't.

Perhaps this time you'll root out the book of pay scales for "supposed socialists".

Interesting to see that you think that a union should not try, as an employer, to act the way that it expects other employers to act, but to actually behave, as an employer, in a way that it fights against. In other words, you want it to operate double standards.

And trade unions have elected general secretaries, so the membership do have the chance to do something about it. That's called democracy.

On Npower: if it's struggling so much that it wants to take jobs away from this country so that it can pay much, much lower wages in a country where the cost of living is much lower, then it is entirely apt to ask if the boss is chipping in with moves to reduce the wage bill – because that's all it is. And after all, if profits had fallen, it would illustrate a bit of failure at the top, wouldn't it, probably more so than among those back-room staff who are set to lose their jobs?

Clue: Npower is not struggling – it made £176m in operating profits in the first part of this year alone.

Such big corporates are greedy – and as a result of their greed, people get shafted. But then you'll be squealing for the people who are chucked out of jobs to be finding work instantly or having any benefits slashed, because obviously there are loads of jobs out there etc.

And as for the 'politics of envy', you do pretty well yourself: whinging and whining about how your boss won't give you a pay rise, but complaining also at any group of workers who dare to fight for one – oh dear, they should put up and shut up, just like you.

I suppose you think William Wilberforce shouldn't have opposed slavery because he wasn't a slave? That is the stupidity of your "logic" re Toynbee or anyone else who isn't on the bread line who dares champion social equality.

You think you are being clever by going on about hypocrisy but you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word.



You are now making stuff up. They weren't asked about "process improvements". The company undertook a review without any consultation whatsoever with the Union or employees and simply announced that is what it was going to do. It is not the politics of envy but a clear illustration of a company that is making the very workers who helped it make a profit redundant!

What is more, Paul Massara the CEO earns £600,000 a year which includes a bonus of £150,000 which is tied to company profits. So he is going to get an even bigger bonus if him exporting jobs lowers costs and thus increases profit.

Increasing profit by lowering cost has been the way many companies have kept their share price high and the City happy for years. What they aren't doing is increasing productivity. There is only so far you can take this strategy but in the meantime people in this country lose their jobs because of it.

There is nothing envious about highlighting the cynicism of Massara who will benefit in his own pocket at the expense of the very workers who delivered the profits he is already benefiting from.

We have a German state owned company exporting British jobs to India and all you can come up with is simplistic nonsense about comments on the CEO's salary.



What are you on about now? Any company factors in its labour costs into what it charges and so capitalism and market forces will come to the rescue. They will either be able to pass these costs on and so profit margin will remain unaffected or they won't because a competitor is undercutting them despite also having to pay the living wage.

In any case just how many people do you think are going to be affected by being paid the living wage in any particular company? KPMG is a living wage employer. You reckon that cost them a lot? Have they asked for their NI bill to be reduced? No.

He makes stuff up all the time, and isn't very good at it. Don't worry, he'll disappear for a few days and then pop up on another thread.