Trades unions members, in general, have higher pay and better conditions.

They do but at what cost? Let me think what happened to the great British unionised businesses - coal mining, British Leyland, etc - oh yes, they more or less ceased to be. All those union members no longer have jobs or union membership. Short-term selfishness cost them.

So, what are you saying here ...?



What did they strike over? You do know, don't you, that not every strike is over pay? And since you appear so derisory, can we assume that you have never ever taken the benefits of things won by trades unions? We could start with the eight-hour day – presumably you quite happily work more than that and believe everyone else should too?



So that was what they struck over, was it? And even if that was the case, do you really, really think that Bob effing Diamond is seriously worth millions every year?



That was nice of you. At least we know you'd turn down any benefit won by a trades union.



So, nothing whatsoever at all like the bosses ...



Offer to give up some of your pay then. obviously your family won't suffer.



Wjat is the going rate for a road sweeper, a bin man, a nurse, a teacher, a copper, a lollipop lady, a dinnerlady, a social worker etc etc etc etc etc?



Well indeed. It should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain cell that you can run up ladders, fight fires and carry people around at, say, 65, shouldn't it?



They are. You're not. See above.



Nasty, selfish, pig ignorant bullshit. Seriously. Give up reading the gutter press and try to activate your brain.

Boy oh boy – what a fabulously sweeping comment. Perhaps you'd like to come out with me and actually meet and talk to some nurses and teaching assistants and PCSOs and cleaners and porters and tell them all this.



Well of course. Hospital cleaners who have had their wages cut for years – and have been promised more of the same – and are having their pensions attacked too, should just bend over and be kicked. After all, what do they contribute to society? Their wages are just an act of charity. They;re workshy scum really, just begging off the state ... etc etc etc.

As opposed, of course, to a man who is primarily paid by the taxpayer to mess around in flash cars ...



And frankly this is just a seriously dumb comment. We're not talking about communism. We're talking about real people who do real jobs. You, apparently, consider them overpaid and worthless. Thank god you do something really productive in society, eh?

And I look forward to your announcement that you will give up all the benefits that you have now that have been won for you by unions. Because you wouldn't be a hypocrite, now would you?

Very good point. It's far better that, in the last 30 years, the wages of the majority have fallen. That's obviously a good thing. Clearly a massive help for the economy.

That's because the UK does not operate in isolation. Other countries compete more strongly than others in many areas and so wage wealth shifts - in many cases to very poor countries in Asia, S.America, Russia and latterly Africa. Now, that surely is a good thing - passing a share of wealth from the rich (lie you) to the poor? Or, does your love of the 'poor' not extend to the truly poor?

So since the government of this country decided that our national economy should be based primarily on the service sectors, including retail, you'd think they'd comprehend that people need a decent income in order to be able to keep that economy going, wouldn't you? Oh. Or perhaps neo-liberals are economic illiterates, eh?

Did anyone else watch the programme last night about Fred the Shred and HSBO?

And there'll still be idiots who don't think there was anything wrong with their behaviour.

Which government decided that?

The one that came to power in 1979.

When? Was it in their manifesto? Nothing to do with retailers and their customers then?

Is there a smiley for naive? Manifesto????