Tube strike is off

[opel80uk]

I suspect a yougov poll with the same question might, but what difference does that make? You know yougov are nothing to do with the government right?

I think most people accept YouGov polls to be completely impartial, that’s why I used them. I’m saying that I would wager a survey by them would give the same results.

The fact that they're less militant than the RMT hardly makes them a beacon of rational thought does it. UKIP are more sensible than the BNP, doesn't make them sensible.

But that’s not a sensible comparison, as TSSA are considered moderate across the whole TUM spectrum. You’ve picked 2 political parties on the (one on the extreme far) right.

I agree, union leaders aren't stupid. They're very good at extracting lots of money from members by scaremongering and making themselves seem more powerful than they are (scargill being the most obvious example).

The average wage of a Tube Driver is 52k. I’d say, given that, Bob Crow is fairly powerful, and doesn’t need to do an awful lot of scaremongering to extract his members subs.

The statement about boris vs/ unions isn't even internally consistent. Unions are allowed to concede that offices will have to close and campaign for strike actions to stop it, but politicians aren't allowed to change their mind on an issue over the course of 6 years?

Of course they can change their mind, but if you play politics with people’s livelihoods, you always run this risk. And besides, as far as I can see the strike threat was to get LU back round the table, not to necessarily stop the office closures (although that may come to pass)

[TheAnimus]

I doubt strongly any individual or union would be taken to court over a legally recognised strike.

It would be considered market manipulation for many markets in many areas. The strike would be legal, but the consequences illegal.

You do know it’s not really the flu, don’t you?

Even more confused what it's about now.

IAnd I guess that’s why the Union wields such power. You painted a scenario earlier where supermarket shelf stackers became ‘essential’, so it’s hard to argue this particular point with someone like that.

Again you aren't really understanding it.

A loaf of bread costs less than a quid at the corner shop, but if you where starving you'd probably pay every penny you had. The reason that bread isn't massively expensive is because it's very easy to make.

The point is you don't pay the price something is worth to you, you pay upto it. People will produce it when it costs less than you are willing to pay. There are some things which are very inelastic. A mass transit system is one such example.

You try and prioritise things as if there is some immutable rank to things. Who cares about Doctors if you've got some wasteland where you are starving to death, same goes with armed forces, or food or water.

They are not. No one really cares if we don't have bread in the shop, we will eat something else instead.

Now the problem is that if every one of 'something' unionised, that could be really unfair, because they could keep demanding more and more money to do a task which isn't required. That money has to come from some where.

This is the issue with RMT. Just because the security guard at the front of the building can deny someone entry doesn't make them the most important, or the best paid.

Unions whield such power because they don't like people working at the firm who are not in it, and do their best to prevent that from happening.

ILot’s. I used South Wimbledon Tube station an awful lot (Kilkenny Tavern anyone?) of the top of my head. Although I am going back to 2011, to be fair.

Oyster has become more common since then.

II was merely pointing out that there was an alternative, when you said there was none. That you don’t want to/like to/feel like you should have to use that alternative is a fair POV, but to say it doesn’t exist is factually incorrect.

Let them eat cake, is just pointing out there is an alternative. It might not be pratical or possible but look it's there!.

I have read a good bit, but I’m not sure what he said that would make him a hypocrite? Should people who defend poor people’s rights not speak out, unless they are poor themselves?

Mostly his views on communism from the 80s, are directly contradicted by his actions.

I can't stand the people like the Fabians who talk about how the wealthy (excluding them) should help the poor, whilst complaining about people like Bill Gates who actually do!

IWhere is it? What was the sample size?

That was the joke. It was a sample size of 1.

I disagree.

But you simultaneously acknowledge that the wording was biased and emotive, yet don't think it effects its impartiality?

I think most people would look at that and say you are being unnecessarily pedantic.
.....
Yeah people are funny like that. They sort of expect that if you make a massive song and dance about something to help you win an election, that you would at least include it in your manifesto if you plan on doing the opposite further down the line.

Which is my point, not really a massive song and dance. Details eh!?

And data cannot possibly be manipulated I guess.

It is an offence to falsify these figures, they also have to be audited.

Yeah, I read the survey. Not the best, but I don’t see what the huge problem with it is TBH. I’m yet to see any data that tells me the majority of the paying public want unmanned stations. When I see that, I may change my opinion.

Everyone wants cheaper travel right?

[opel80uk]

It would be considered market manipulation for many markets in many areas. The strike would be legal, but the consequences illegal.

I’m not legally qualified, but I doubt whether a consequence can be legal or illegal.

Even more confused what it's about now.

Blue Flu is how Police get around the ban on going on strike. So whilst it possible to pass laws to ban strikes, they are, in practise, unenforceable.

Again you aren't really understanding it

A loaf of bread costs less than a quid at the corner shop, but if you where starving you'd probably pay every penny you had. The reason that bread isn't massively expensive is because it's very easy to make.

The point is you don't pay the price something is worth to you, you pay upto it. People will produce it when it costs less than you are willing to pay. There are some things which are very inelastic. A mass transit system is one such example.

You try and prioritise things as if there is some immutable rank to things. Who cares about Doctors if you've got some wasteland where you are starving to death, same goes with armed forces, or food or water.

They are not. No one really cares if we don't have bread in the shop, we will eat something else instead.

You were right at the start; I don’t understand any of that point.

Now the problem is that if every one of 'something' unionised, that could be really unfair, because they could keep demanding more and more money to do a task which isn't required. That money has to come from some where.

They could, but most don’t act that way because leaders are accountable to its members. A union that puts unreasonable requests to a Government isn’t going to do as well as one that does, and members know that.

This is the issue with RMT. Just because the security guard at the front of the building can deny someone entry doesn't make them the most important, or the best paid.

Unfortunately, if I want entry to a building and a security guard has the authority to bar me entry then, whilst he might not be the best paid, he certainly is the most important person to me.

Unions whield such power because they don't like people working at the firm who are not in it, and do their best to prevent that from happening.

Strength in numbers. That’s just common sense.

Oyster has become more common since then.

It was fairly popular when I was there to be honest.

Let them eat cake, is just pointing out there is an alternative. It might not be pratical or possible but look it's there!.

The tube covers a 10 mile radius. I would say for the majority of people that is both practical and possible to navigate.

Mostly his views on communism from the 80s, are directly contradicted by his actions.

Such as? Any links or quotes? I appreciate they might be hard to find though, given you are going back a minimum of 20 years.

That was the joke. It was a sample size of 1.

I know it was a joke!

But you simultaneously acknowledge that the wording was biased and emotive, yet don't think it effects its impartiality?

I don’t think it was too biased or emotive. It could have been worded better, but I’m of the opinion the outcome would be the same had it been worded neutrally.

Which is my point, not really a massive song and dance. Details eh!?

Again, we differ on the definition obviously.

Everyone wants cheaper travel right?

Everyone? Not at the expense of peoples jobs, I wouldn’t have thought.

[peterb]

Seems we have a modern equivalent of the unstoppable meeting the immoveable (I'l leave it to the protagonists to decide which is which)

[TheAnimus]

The tube covers a 10 mile radius. I would say for the majority of people that is both practical and possible to navigate.

Your kidding right?

Everyone? Not at the expense of peoples jobs, I wouldn’t have thought.

Well, that's fine then, because obviously you are in favour of the telegraph and the number of boys employed there in.

You go live in your world, where you can't even have a phone, and I'll live in mine, where even the poorest people in society have instant messaging capabilities that cost, as much as possible, next to zero per message.

Luddite.

[Top_gun]

You mean the election before last?

He was quite clear the last election, his point about smart phones was particularly apt. Almost everyone at the bus stop has a phone capable of displaying some HTML showing the next bus arrival, if they will be able to afford the fare!

No, I was talking about the 2012 election. Boris definitely played dirty there.

Not everyone has a smart phone, grannies in particular as well as the poorer demographics.

[TheAnimus]

No, I was talking about the 2012 election. Boris definitely played dirty there.

How so? (also dirty as in what, worse than Ken, or dirty next to some ideological standard).

Not everyone has a smart phone, grannies in particular as well as the poorer demographics.

Erm it's as if you didn't understand his point. He was mentioning how such devices where rare, inconceivable almost to most in 2007, now they are prolific and cheap.

I don't think it is suggesting that that we don't have any ticket machines and go for smart phones just right now, more than we've advanced so much technologically.

You've read the speech in question right?

[peterb]

Not everyone has a smart phone, grannies in particular as well as the poorer demographics.

Somewhat patronising/condescending?

I'd better tell my parents that they can't use their smartphones/tablets etc.

[TheAnimus]

Anyone, that in anyway supports the strikes I think is living on a fantasy world, where economic principles don't exist.

Reminder, this is what they claimed the strike was about:

[Top_gun]

Typical media manipulation of Bob Crow's comments in that LBC show.

Basically the broadcaster is still stuck in 20th century work conditions. Time to modernise working conditions for all. Bring on the 21 hour working week with full pay.

[Top_gun]

Somewhat patronising/condescending?

I'd better tell my parents that they can't use their smartphones/tablets etc.

Not at all. If TA said this you'd be praising his comments endlessly!

[peterb]

Not at all. If TA said this you'd be praising his comments endlessly!

A patronizing comment aimed at one section of the population ("grannies" and the "poorer demographics" ) is patronizing comment whoever says it.

However, you make a valid point in that people who are visually impaired, or have a mobility problem may have difficulty buying tickets, so bringing staff out of a closed ticket office into the station forecourt will allow them to be proactive in helping those passengers, rather than reactive, waiting for them to appear at a window.

But I would suggest that that group of people (including the elderly) are more savvy than you give them credit for, and regular travellers will have an Oyster card, or if they are travelling to London by train, may have bought a tube ticket at their national rail station.

[Top_gun]

So Peterb if one elderly person can use a smartphone then all of them can use them. Is that the kind of warped logic you are using?

[peterb]

No more than the sweeping generalization about 'grannies and poorer demographic - unless you have some figures to back up your assertion.

However, that is irrelevant, as smartphone ownership is not a pre-requisite for travel on the London Underground.

[Mblaster]

Basically the broadcaster is still stuck in 20th century work conditions. Time to modernise working conditions for all. Bring on the 21 hour working week with full pay.

And while we're at it, can I get a hover board and a robot butler?

Hopefully they can convert the rest of the tube to be driverless, then all you need is a few staff in a central room to manage the trains and handle any faults. Any station staff to help with tickets etc. would be optional to running of the tube network.

[wasabi]

No more than the sweeping generalization about 'grannies and poorer demographic - unless you have some figures to back up your assertion.

A year old figures now, but probably not wildly out. See page 6.