It Is All Right For Some...

[FredPuli43]

Bob Crow, the transport union leader, has been spotted living the high life on a cruise. The Daily Mail is, I think the word is, outraged. Now, had he been a QC he would be on as good or better money, but he wouldn't be condemned providing he did his best to get good results for those he represented. Is there a difference?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549825/High-life-Bob-lobster-red-baron-With-members-set-bring-misery-commuters-week-rail-union-boss-Crow-escapes-sip-cocktails-Rio-sunshine.html

[modeller]

LG. //So who are all these other "union bosses" who are "feathering their own nests" //
The TPA finds that 37 trade union leaders take home pay of £100,000 or more. Derek Simpson of Unite is the fattest union fat cat with remuneration of £186,626.
Dave Prentis Unison £127,436
Christine Blower NUT £124,483

[naomi24]

Mikey, //Ah...so Crow CAN go on holiday anywhere he likes after all naomi ! I knew we would get there in the end !//

Get there in the end? What on earth are you talking about? We hardly had a lengthy discussion! Of course he can go where he likes, and despite his high salary, he has chosen to stay in his council house, but had he been a Tory voter you wouldn’t have been supporting him - you’d have been condemning him. That’s what I object to – the blatant double standards of the left. The fact is everyone aspires to a higher standard of living – and why shouldn't they? As Sqad says he would do it and, since you have no criticism of Mr Crow, clearly you would too, so rather than continually wallowing in the politics of envy perhaps you might think about that the next time you rush to condemn high earners and their lifestyles.

[LazyGun]

@Modeller So, what are you saying then? That a salary greater than 100K a year is "feathering your own nest"? Does that apply in other areas of industry as well?

To me, the expression "feathering your own nest" in the context of politicians means (ab)using your position to make money. Borderline illegality, if you will. And you went on to give what might be considered an example of that - Scargill, and the flat and all the rest of it.

So are you saying those other 37 union bosses are all doing the same thing? Or are you just objecting to their salary?

[mikey4444]

Naomi ..usual drivel I'm afraid. I have never said that nobody should go on an expensive holiday if they want. Never. Don't put words in my mouth...I am more than capable of forming sentences without your assistance thank you very much !

[naomi24]

Mikey, // I have never said that nobody should go on an expensive holiday if they want. Never. Don't put words in my mouth..//

Who said you did?

//I am more than capable of forming sentences without your assistance thank you very much !//

That’s quite evident. ;o)

[modeller]

Lg What I'm saying is we get all this left wing bleeding heart posturing from our union bosses whilst they enjoy the high life. When they call out members on strikes , working to rule, go slows etc it's never them who suffer. It's their members, industry, the general public, jobs, who pay the price.

[emmie]

whilst they are turfing out people from council homes for daring to have one extra room, or asking people to downsize, isn't it reprehensible for a man who has this very large salary and could quite clearly afford to buy still live in a council property, when they are so sorely needed, surely he should have moved ages ago. This is the usual double standards, as to his lobster impersonation, let's hope the old codger doesn't go and get sunstroke and have to be hospitalised...

[Quizmonster]

Perhaps Bob's reason for keeping his council house is the fact that he utterly disagreed with the plonker who sold most of them and refused to allow councils to build any more.
Let's never lose sight of the fact that council houses (quote) "are so sorely needed" because of one person and one person alone...and it isn't Bob Crow!

[maggiebee]

I went on a cruise in 2003 - not expensive then - under £900. Worst holiday I ever had, just hated it. Felt I was "trapped" on the cruise ship even though it was huge and we could wander about. Mind we did visit Rome, Monaco and Barcelona which were wonderful. Would never have another unless it was a Nile cruise.

[dunnitall]

QM - whether Crow agrees with selling of council houses isn't the issue, the fact that he has the income to enable himself to BUY a property in the open market it is what is being said. People who don't have that sort of income are the ones who would require social housing.

[Quizmonster]

There are masses of people living in council houses who have sufficient funds to buy but choose not to for a variety of reasons. There is only one reason Bob Crow is being 'picked on' and that is because the rightwing press barons and their gullible readers see him as an enemy...simple as that.
Good luck to ya, Bob!

[emmie]

do you really think that, had i the funds i would have moved ages ago.

[Quizmonster]

I don't just think that, I know that! There are manifold reasons why someone might wish to stay exactly where they are right now...nice area...family members living nearby...great neighbours...proximity to job...excellent local facilities. I'm sure you can think of many others; I can, but there's not much point in belabouring the matter.
Speaking of jobs, lots of big-money winners choose to carry on working. Should they be hounded out of the work they enjoy on the basis that they are obviously "depriving" someone else of a job, when they themselves clearly don't need it?
The whole Bob Crow house business is just nonsense. As with the work-point above, only ONE other family could be housed if he moved. Compare that with the multitude Thatcher condemned to homelessness by her sell-off policy.

[FredPuli43]

The fact remains that Bob Crow could rent privately and in the same area. He doesn't do so, perhaps, not because he has a great sentimental attachment to one council house, but because renting it is cheaper than the market rate for one nearby. And in not doing so he is depriving someone, who is not like him,of a council house, Mrs Thatcher or no Mrs Thatcher. Icidentally, nobody is demanding that he buy a house; owning property is clearly tantamoiunt to prudhonism in his book !

If , as this house is sometimes reported, it is a Housing Association property, the maximum rent he would be paying as a new tenant would be no more than 80 per cent of market rate, and that is the highest percentage it has been.

[Quizmonster]

"No Mrs Thatcher" would obviously have been vastly preferable, Fred!

Nevertheless, why don't you reply to the actual point I made; namely the fact that only ONE family could conceivably benefit from Bob Crow's doing what you suggest, as compared to the MANY families without access to council housing specifically because of what Thatcher did to the stock of it.

And what about my secondary point? In conditions of high unemployment, should people with sufficient wealth not to need to work be forced to leave whatever their employment is in order to make way for people who do actually require a wage?

Thirdly, perhaps, you might explain to me what the difference is between job-hogging as against what you see as house-hogging.

[FredPuli43]

QM, the fact that Mrs Thatcher put thousands of Council homes into private hands is no reason for Mr Crow to keep renting his. I don't see any logical connection between the two. I can see a desire to drag Mrs Thatcher into any and every thing, though; it's a kind of Godwin's law

[Quizmonster]

Well, here's the "connection", Fred. Bob Crow's rented council house will one day revert to public ownership, so he is depriving other potential renters of it:
a) just one at any given time and (b) merely temporarily.

Compare that with Thatcher's sell-off of council properties, by which she deprived other potential renters of them:
(a) millions at a time and (b) forever.

My point is simply, as already stated, the indisputable fact that SHE has vastly more to answer for in the shortage of council accommodation 'Stakes' than HE has.

No comment on my "job-hogging" concept and its ramifications? Just imagine what the results might be if a tranche of the top-earning barristers walked out forever at lunchtime tomorrow. They don't have to go on working and they would STILL never want for anything again in financial terms. At least hospital bed-blockers do actually need treatment somewhere!