British postal union seeks to deliver management’s agenda

[Big Daz]

Throughout the years there has been a history of lively political debate on our "Debate" forum. Where this involves local politics though, we ask that people taking part are open about their own political involvement.

In summary, if you actively work for a local party and want to raise an issue or take part in a discussion about local issues, that is fine - but please be open about your affiliation.

Has anyone admitted to being a member of the Trafalgar Club?

Nope, just Tories and Fib Dems

[dvbuk55]

Throughout the years there has been a history of lively political debate on our "Debate" forum. Where this involves local politics though, we ask that people taking part are open about their own political involvement.

In summary, if you actively work for a local party and want to raise an issue or take part in a discussion about local issues, that is fine - but please be open about your affiliation.

Has anyone admitted to being a member of the Trafalgar Club?

Which one?

The one which was set up for 'supporters' who don't have the bottle to become 'members'.

Well that's two things I'd never heard of til today - Trafalgar Club and that Astroturf effect - never too old to learn

[BELIAL]

Throughout the years there has been a history of lively political debate on our "Debate" forum. Where this involves local politics though, we ask that people taking part are open about their own political involvement.

In summary, if you actively work for a local party and want to raise an issue or take part in a discussion about local issues, that is fine - but please be open about your affiliation.

Has anyone admitted to being a member of the Trafalgar Club?

Which one?

The one which was set up for 'supporters' who don't have the bottle to become 'members'.

Well that's two things I'd never heard of til today - Trafalgar Club and that Astroturf effect - never too old to learn

And that me old mucker is the key to it all. Wouldn't want to grow into arch reactionary /uber conservative mode ,would we?

[Tman]

By claiming that my article is 'anti-union propaganda', Tman resorts to distorting the truth. This is because he cannot answer the main contention - that it is the CWU which fails to act as a union in the way it has been traditionally understood by workers.

But that's your/WSWS's assertion; I don't see it that way, and presumably neither do thousands of it's members. All I can see is some bunch criticising a genuine worker's union, which is ironic given the alleged stance of any party with "socialist" in it's name.
The point remains then; the benefits achieved by the CWU etc over the years vs the benefits (any?) achieved by your chosen party. How long does any one need to think about that one?


Incidentally, my point isn't against socialism as such ( a pretty sound idea when conceived, but mostly ignored today) but all the little groups who like to contain the "S" word in the title, as if that somehow confers status or gains respect.
Achieve nothing, do nothing, talk a lot. My local union rep does more for the "workers" than any of those parasites....

Parody at it's best...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7V ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tman]

Wouldn't want to grow into arch reactionary /uber conservative mode ,would we?

"Uber"? How achingly cool, Bell..................................

Well, ten years ago, anyway. Even the Guardianista would blush if caught using that particularly affected epithet these days..

[BELIAL]

Wouldn't want to grow into arch reactionary /uber conservative mode ,would we?

"Uber"? How achingly cool, Bell..................................

Well, ten years ago, anyway. Even the Guardianista would blush if caught using that particularly affected epithet these days..

Just can't think what possessed me to use the term "uber" what with it's Shavian and Nietzschtian connotations , I mean fancy implying in a roundabout way that any poster on here is suffering from a misguided sense of superiority . Heavens to betsy ,that would be like trying to rubbish a position that you can't counter by pointing out a spelling or grammatical error,scraping the barrel really.
Still good to see the views are up from 32 to 1800 ,the original post has much merit , well worth a read.

[Tman]

Just can't think what possessed me to use the term "uber" what with it's Shavian and Nietzschtian connotations , I mean fancy implying in a roundabout way that any poster on here is suffering from a misguided sense of superiority .

Is that what it was?
Damn, and there was me thinking it was just a daft post written under the influence of too much cheap Chardonnay.
Things are clearly worse than I thought if you actually meant to use it....

[MinisterofCucumber]

Tman,

Stage 3's writing is clean and surgical. I like it. Why can't you answer his arguments?

I am bothered to look at his website and give serious thought to his suggestions.

[Tman]

Stage 3's writing is clean and surgical. I like it. Why can't you answer his arguments?

I disagree with the article, and have said so several times. From an empirical viewpoint alone, it's clearly fallacious.
{Unless there's a link to something (anything?) which can be viewed as a positive success for the WSWS? }


But I'm sure the CWU etc will survive criticism from this particular "writer" and organisation.

[borders]

interesting thread , especially intrigued by part of one of Mr Tman's post....."Incidentally, my point isn't against socialism as such ( a pretty sound idea when conceived, but mostly ignored today)". when was Socialism conceived ? why cant it still be a sound idea today ? Sincere Questions Mr Tman , are you against the people rather than the ideology ?

[BELIAL]

I think we all got an inkling that you disagreed with the article, we were just wondering if you had a reasoned and well founded counter position that you would care to share?
Prejudice,bile and bullying isn't really a substitute for rational debate.
Simply stating something is false because you disagree with it does not cut the mustard. Go on give it a try, "I disagree with this article because..."

[Tman]

="BELIAL"]I think we all got an inkling that you disagreed with the article, we were just wondering if you had a reasoned and well founded counter position that you would care to share?
Prejudice,bile and bullying isn't really a substitute for rational debate.

A good statement, and worth remembering...

Simply stating something is false because you disagree with it does not cut the mustard. Go on give it a try, "I disagree with this article because..."

This is obviously the current style of "debate"; the constant repetition of the same question.

OK then, another rephrasing-

"I disagree with this article because........clearly the CWU/RMT/T&G are not the management's willing accomplices in their evil machinations. That is an often-repeated and long-running theme beloved of many of the Hard Left groups, but "long-running" doesn't make it true or accurate. Far from it, in fact.




[

rders"]interesting thread , especially intrigued by part of one of Mr Tman's post....."Incidentally, my point isn't against socialism as such ( a pretty sound idea when conceived, but mostly ignored today)". when was Socialism conceived ?

Maybe "conceived" was a poor choice of words, and something like "promulgated" would have been better.

why cant it still be a sound idea today ?

Because Collectivism in it's various forms has been shown not to work? It's a flawed concept, and could only ever get anywhere near working in a subsistence level grouping, where such a system can be necessary by force of circumstances?
{Even then, there's probably still tensions caused by those who feel others do more/less or eat more or less than themselves. Human nature.}

Sincere Questions Mr Tman , are you against the people rather than the ideology ?

The ideology sounds good in theory, but is unworkable in practice. The little groups of fantasists and dreamers who like to spout the same tired old rhetoric and cliches are probably harmless enough, but in reality are powerless and impotent too. Maybe they should have realised by now there's more to it than home-made banners and breaking shop windows at G7 demos?
Sadly most Western societies seem to be sliding inexorably to the political Right, and there's no-one able to halt it...

[borders]

thanks for your reply Mr Tman ," socialism as such ( a pretty sound idea when conceived" to " Because Collectivism in it's various forms has been shown not to work? It's a flawed concept"-- seems rather contradictory to me but hey i dont want to split hairs.

[borders]

Because Collectivism in it's various forms has been shown not to work? It's a flawed concept, and could only ever get anywhere near working in a subsistence level grouping, where such a system can be necessary by force of circumstances?
{Even then, there's probably still tensions caused by those who feel others do more/less or eat more or less than themselves. Human nature.}

is belonging to a Union , not Collectivism ? solidarity amongst workers to improve our conditions ? if that is not the case , the chap from WSW has a point ? you seem to defend the Union on the one side but then claim Collectivism is a flawed concept ?

[Tman]

is belonging to a Union , not Collectivism ? solidarity amongst workers to improve our conditions ? if that is not the case , the chap from WSW has a point ? you seem to defend the Union on the one side but then claim Collectivism is a flawed concept ?

Depends just how far you wish to take the inclusivity of that Collectivism, but thankfully membership of the CWU doesn't extend into any areas of my life other than work.
True Collectivism in it's purest form would require committment in every aspect of your life to function as it should, and what right-minded individual would want that? Many people have started wars and revolutions to decrease state involvement in thier lives.......