[Closed] I got a pay rise today

You're lucky mate, I've not had one for 3 ****ing years.

I had one a month ago, and it is nice.

I don't even have a job, never mind a payrise... 🙁

a job would be nice.

My pension just went up by almost 5%.

you should not go to an interview on monday too, get another rise.

Yep me as well 2.4% & 4 extra days holiday 😆

Hadn't heard anything at work about a rise, so was resigned to not getting one. Found a letter from work when I got home, said that despite challenging conditions the company was doing well and I had a 3% raise. Not huge, but better than nowt, or a sharp stick in the eye. 😀

So did I. That is, we all got back the two year voluntary pay cut we took two years ago to keep the company in business. The bleating public sector can go whistle as far as I'm concerned.

3.3% rise here, despite the company being on it's arse (so credit to the boss for that). Still no sign of an overtime rate, sick pay, pension or PPE issue though. Or training, or the exam I was supposed to do at the start of last year which would have qualified me for the role I've been doing for the last two years.

Daily wake up thankful for still having a job though. I've been cacking myself for the last year or so that i'd have to somehow find a new career, with my non-existent skill set & so much competition it'd be an absolute bastard.

The bleating public sector can go whistle as far as I'm concerned

Pay rise .. what's that then.. 😥 nothing for 3 years, down to 0.6 of my full time salary and company likely to hit the skids by June if my reckoning is correct. End of financial year means the outcasts from the bonfire of quangos amongst others are all hitting a decimated job sector and things are looking tough. Forgive me for not feeling, sounding or being that cheerful for you, although I guess if someone, somewhere is doing OK then there is some hope.

Well said Junkyard, we have of course,in schools and Further Ed been totally untouched by the last couple of years.

yep no wage rise for three years here either and not looking likely this year or next !!
times are tough indeed

you would be no use there anyway you require compassion and empathy for your fellow humans

Hmm, some of them yes, but not the ones who staff my local council tax office, it appears you are required to have no compassion or consideration at all to be considered for that position. Also, a complete unwillingness to work before 9.30 or after 4.30.

Not everyone in the public sector is a hard working nurse/policeman etc.

Also, a complete unwillingness to work before 9.30 or after 4.30.

Because some people have emergency council tax problems early in the morning or later in the
evening ?

Well I suppose councils could provide emergency cover for those people. Obviously it would increase people's council tax bill though.

On the plus side, it would give Mr D. Mail-Reader something more to moan about.

i've been working since november, and am hoping to start getting paid in the next couple of months... my £150-200/month doesn't go very far!

🙂

Because some people have emergency council tax problems early in the morning or later in the
evening ?

I had to get some forms (they were not available on line) sorted as my council tax rates were too high and they weren't sorting. despite phone calls. It took 5min once they opened, every other department in the building was open at 8.30. In the end I had to take that time off work to get it sorted.

I know council staff are suffering, my aunts work for a local council office and both were forced to take up long commutes when the local office closed due to a merger with another council. But many people are suffering (just read the posts above) so defending a certain 'sector' as all high and mighty is just daft.

2.4% and im in the public sector 😯

we have also just given voluntary redundancy to about another 12% of staff, meaning ~25% in two years.

every other department in the building was open at 8.30.

Assuming that the other departments were also council departments, there might a clue there, ie, council staff do work earlier than 9.30 but perhaps the staff which deals with council tax issues have other work besides dealing with enquiries from the public ?

I doubt whether just one council department is "work-shy" whilst all the other departments aren't.

5.1% for me.Sounds good but if you take inflation into acount it's not a pay rise.

[i]The bleating public sector can go whistle as far as I'm concerned.[/i]

Try being a prison officer, go on, I dare you.

I had one a few months ago, well at least the money that goes in the bank has gone up. No ones actually told me I've had a rise but then again last week marked 15 years with the company and I'm yet to have my 3 month trial period assesment.

Picked up a super lucrative Saudi job today...

Totally suprised and amazed that some (Middle Easern people) have so much money.

I'm a self employed Handyman. They wanna pay me, i'll take it!!

I got 5.6% today, on top of a salary I was happy with, so very happy and very grateful. Wor lass is in the public sector and isn't so lucky - no pay rise, massive 'voluntary severance' cut, and a boss who is an utter prick.

I'm a self employed Handyman. They wanna pay me, i'll take it!!

I think you'll find you used to be a handyman , now your a sniper.

1% and "happy" with it given the firm's position. Glad to still have a job.

No payrise for me this year. In fact I'm expecting a substantial pay cut next month. But on the plus side I should be getting an extra 176 days a year holiday.

defending a certain 'sector' as all high and mighty is just daft.

Do you have sympathy for public sector workers who are being made redundant or do you think the bleating public sector can go whistle?

No and yes, public sector workers should try working in the private sector, wouldn't last very long in the real world.

partyboy - Member

Do you have sympathy for public sector workers who are being made redundant or do you think the bleating public sector can go whistle?

No and yes, public sector workers should try working in the private sector, wouldn't last very long in the real world.

ah, brings back happy memories: racing office chairs up and down the racking aisles, leather-knife darts, the wall of art, fitters popping down for half an hour's chatting under the guise of needing a spare part, doing my Open University homework on the night shift, the poker school run by the other night shift.
Damn you British-American Tobacco, you worked us like slaves.

No and yes, public sector workers should try working in the private sector, wouldn't last very long in the real world.

FAIL

For years the public sector has been paid less than equivalent jobs in the private sector, but the recompense for this was better conditions, better pension and better job security. Just because you lot in the private sector searching for your millions have found that you might actually be willing to forgo your salary for better security, conditions and pension now it's gone belly-up, don't come bleating on here about it.

We accepted a 39 month deal last year worth just around 3% a year, so can't complain. The Union messed up the Ballot somehow and it was withdrawn, so we never found out whether we were headed for strike or not.

Much better than the pittance + a non-consolidated bonus that they were trying to implement despite remaining profitable and pushing through contract changes and cost cutting. The previous year we didn't get a pay rise, just a non-consolidated bonus of around £400.

I know exactly who that company are spooky, should be interesting next year because the 3% was negotiable depending on inflation

Pretty sure that ballot would have been in favour of strike action, amazed me that people would withdraw their labour for a few quid yet signed their terms and conditions away for nothing.

36 years is more than enough and its pension time for me then off to do a degree as a mature student.

Hope it doesn't get any worse for the rank and file, just remember treat everything they say as a lie and you won't go far wrong

No and yes, public sector workers should try working in the private sector, wouldn't last very long in the real world.

Tell us more about the real world, sounds intriguing.

You should have all done better at school and uni rather than coming on here moaning about your paltry pay rises! 😉

15% rise for me but having said that I am worth it. Private sector and oil company, business has been worse!

No and yes, public sector workers should try working in the private sector, wouldn't last very long in the real world.

Now there's gratitude for you.

The worldwide global recession was caused by a cataclysmic failure in the private sector.

Greed and incompetence within the private sector, had a devastating effect which caused millions around the world to lose their jobs and robbed many others of much of their pay and conditions.

The UK government, in keeping with many other governments around the world, tried to minimise the effects of the worse global recession since the 1930s by protecting the public sector.

The aim was to limit the recession to only the private sector whilst keeping the public sector afloat. This would not only protect a substantial portion of the economy, but it would also throw a lifeline to the private sector.

It worked. Had both the private and public sectors gone into recession, and had contraction occurred right across the whole of the economy, the consequences for Britain would have catastrophic.

Not only that, but it did indeed also throw a lifeline to the private sector, and helped preserve jobs, wages, and conditions within that sector. The construction industry which is always the first to suffer in a recession for example, managed to stay reasonably afloat as a direct result of the public sector. In fact the very modest growth towards the end of last year was put down solely to economic activity driven by construction (activity in construction effects more sectors than any other industry : carpets, curtains, domestic appliances, horticulture, electrical components, etc, etc)

Moreover it worked so well that many are blissfully unaware that we have just experienced the worse economic calamity for nearly 70 years.

Unfortunately those champions and great exponents of the private sector, the Tories, despite having been rejected by a substantial majority of the British people, have managed to overcome their lack of support by doing shabby and squalid deal with a very small party of political prostitutes, and have crawled their way back into power.

And today the Eton educated privileged sons of wealthy bankers and illegitimate descendants of royalty, are wreaking their revenge on the public sector and British welfare provisions which they despise so much.

Jaunking gets a 15% rise. Fnarr fnarr.

No and yes, public sector workers should try working in the private sector, wouldn't last very long in the real world.

Having worked in both environments (although always working for a private company myself), I can confidently say there isn't a great deal of difference. Both have some great people who work hard and are underpaid in my opinion, both have some people on big money who are totally incompetent.

Erine, aren't you rather missing where the money to support a massive public sector has come from? Where the money to support the NHS came from? The public sector can't survive without the private.

Did I mention I work in the public sector 😆

The public sector can't survive without the private.

So are we supposed to now bow down to you noble, galliant, profiteering private sector workers that got us into the mess in the first place? 😯

I was amazed and delighted to get a 3% pay rise this year - although by boss did take the opportunity to point out that apparently I'm now at 108% of my standard pay scale for people in my job in pharma industry. Quite how it's possible to be that I'm not sure - surely I'm part of the industry so make up part of the statistics therefore it's not possible to be above 100%?? (though, obviously, I'm not a statistician!!)

Rachel

You're getting paid 8% more than the supposed standard pay scale, surely? e.g. people in your pay grade are supposed to be paid 80-100,000 a year, and you're making 108,000.

I wish I [i]was[/i] making 108,000 - I wouldn't be spending my time chasing NHS Specialist Commissioning Groups to do their paperwork, I'd just pay myself!!! :-0

The public sector can't survive without the private.

Erine, aren't you rather missing where the money to support a massive public sector has come from? Where the money to support the NHS came from? The public sector can't survive without the private.

Well I am limited by the size of the post what I include and what I miss out Ewan.

As far as where the money comes from to support the public sector, well since all the profitable publicly owned enterprises have been given away at knock-down prides to the private sector, it now comes almost exclusively from taxation. That includes taxes which public sectors workers also pay btw.

The private sector simply cannot function without the public sector, from the dependency of the railways on the publicly owned Network Rail, to the law and order provisions provided by the police.

And those who harp on about who actually provides the "material wealth" in society - the "end product", and should therefore be rewarded for doing so, invariably and very conveniently, restrict that argument to their own very narrow agenda.

Vast swathes of the private sector are utterly unproductive and contribute absolutely nothing to the material wealth of society. The private sector employees who justify their pointless office jobs, the speculative wallahs who become rich despite having contributed absolutely nothing to society, the contractors who sub-contract work to sub-contractors who sub-contract work to sub-contractors, and everyone gets a cut of the profit despite having produced absolutely nothing.

The people who are the first to claim that the private sector should be rewarded for producing the material wealth of society, the end product, are also the last to recognise that those who actually produce the material wealth of society, the end product, should be rewarded. Those who do bugger-all, are the ones who should be rewarded the most......according to them.

And something else I missed out Ewan is the extent to which the government helped the private sector in its hour of need. From the placing of contracts such as building new desperately needed schools, to temporarily cutting VAT - a move which undoubtedly saved the private sector from losing some jobs and which also undoubtedly short-term at least, increased the deficit.......loss of tax revenue will always do that short-term .

But hey, let's just give a big hand of applause to the private sector, despite the fact that it simply can't provide in terms of housing, transport, health care, education, and all the other basic human needs ........there's gratitude for you.

partyboy - Member

No and yes, public sector workers should try working in the private sector, wouldn't last very long in the real world.

Just moved from private to public. Absolutely no difference.

Now, if you were to say "Some people in some jobs wouldn't last very long in some other jobs", yep that's true.

Surely the public can't survive without the private *and* vice versa. Correct me if i'm wrong but I believe someone did the experiement of getting rid of the private sector and it didn't turn out all that well...

Anyway, not sure why we have to demonise one sector or the other? I've worked for public sector organistions, and private sector organisations (and for that matter, private sector organisations doing work for public sector) in a wide variety of industries. The only hard and fast rule I've found is that there are excellent workers in both, and rubbish workers in both.

Ewan - Member

Surely the public can't survive without the private *and* vice versa. Correct me if i'm wrong but I believe someone did the experiement of getting rid of the private sector and it didn't turn out all that well...

Anyway, not sure why we have to demonise one sector or the other?

Well if you don't want demonise one sector or the other, then I suggest that it might be useful of you didn't come out with stuff like [i]"the public sector can't survive without the private"[/i] as it suggests that the public sector lives a parasitic existence off the private sector, when if anything, the reverse is true........see my reference to the private sector being unable to satisfy basic human needs.

And yes, I'm happy to correct your claim that a society can't function without a private sector. As I mentioned yesterday, there are examples of socialism having transformed backward feudal agrarian societies into industrial superpowers within a very short period of time. And in some cases becoming even more technologically advanced in certain areas than other far more established capitalist countries. And I can give you the present-day example of Cuba, which when compared with comparable examples such as Haiti or Jamaica, has functioned for many decades despite no significant private sector, and a crippling embargo, to provide basic human needs. Including employment, housing, healthcare, eduction, extended life expectancy, etc.

Of course you might not like the result of a society without a private sector, but that's altogether a different argument. The claim that no society can function without a private sector is false.

Now [i]you[/i] give me an example of a society which functions without a public sector ....... come on, I'm all ears, someone must have tried it surely ? Or is that so impossible that no one has even bothered trying ?

Well it seems even Raul Castro doesn't like the idea of a society without a public sector

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-new-dawn-for-cuba-as-capitalism-eclipses-communism-2232967.html ]A new dawn for Cuba as capitalism eclipses communism[/url]

Grandfather Raul, who turns 80 this year four years after taking over as President from his ailing brother and founder of the revolution, Fidel, will not have given the party a second's thought. That Cuba is tiptoeing back into the sunlight is of his own personal doing, after all. It was last September that a stunned nation as told that the centrally planned economy was dying and needed radical surgery. By the end of this April, the government decreed, 500,000 Cubans would have been fired from state jobs. In the longer term, the Raul-sanctioned plan would eliminate about 1 million jobs, or roughly 20 per cent of the workforce.

It is an audacious blueprint that will kill the socialist model erected by Fidel and his co-revolutionary Che Guevara 53 years ago or save it from collapse. Its success or failure will depend largely on whether Cuba, with its epic inefficiencies and laid-back rhythms, can rediscover long-suppressed capitalist instincts.

....and while this pointless bickering continues the fat cats in both the public and private sector keep dipping their snouts in the trough while the ordinary man/woman in the street gets shafted.

Don't you get it?

Yup I get it, wish id worked thoroughly hard and become a fat cat, survival of the fittest and all that. If the five houses I'm about to build don't sell quick then its gonna be a lean yr!!

Well it seems even Raul Castro doesn't like the idea of a society without a public sector

😀 I think you probably meant without a "private" sector ?

Either way you're wrong. And well done for digging up an article from that profoundly anti-capitalist and socialist newspaper The Independent btw.

The truth is that Cuba when compared with other comparable countries, has done extraordinarily well under socialism for the last 50 years. Indeed never at any time previously has Cuba enjoyed more influence and provided more advice in Latin America than it does today.

A quiet revolution is in process throughout the whole of Latin America and at the very heart of it is the example set by Cuba. Cuba's new-found influence in the region hasn't come because it has failed for the last 50 years, but because of the complete opposite. IE, the whole of Latin America has been failed by the privately owned free market, whilst Cuba on the other hand, despite the odds, and all the attempts of a huge bullying neighbour, has been able to provide its people basic human needs such as employment, housing, education, healthcare, etc.

Of course socialism is very far from perfect and it doesn't solve all the problems which exist in a society, in fact it often creates new ones. That is precisely why Marxist see socialism as merely a transitional stage which needs to be replaced slowly by one in which power is decentralised. The "withering away of the state" is term used by Marxists. A process whereby the state loses its bureaucratic and coercive functions and is replaced by collective and decentralised administration of society.

I know full well that the western media are portraying the announcement by Raul of major reforms in Cuba as a step towards the part reintroduction of capitalism, but it is very far from that. It is not "privatisation" as we understand the term here - there will not be huge privatised companies taking over former state owned sectors.

Instead of privatisation as we know it, there will be "destation" whereby the state will leave certain economic activity to artisans/self-employed and co-operatives. This process will sustain the revolution and make it irrevocable. The goal of all communists is the eventual abolition of the state. Cuba believes that today it has reached that stage of development whereby many of its previous problems have been solved. It is now embarking on a new stage of development which is totally in keeping with Marxist-Leninism.

How far Cuba goes towards the communist goal of reducing the role of the state, depends largely on external factors. A powerful state is still a necessity in a hostile world......no [i]one[/i] country can go down the road of abolition of the state on its own, Trotsky was at least half right on that issue. But it will in any event be slow and in stages, hence the term "withering away".

I have no doubt that the western media will misrepresent what is happening, as they always have. But I also have no doubt that far from weakening the argument for socialism, it will in fact strengthen it.

.

....and while this pointless bickering continues the fat cats in both the public and private sector keep dipping their snouts in the trough while the ordinary man/woman in the street gets shafted.

Don't you get it?

Don't I get it ?

Well let me see................if we [b]weren't[/b] engaged in pointless bickering, then the fat cats in both the public and private sector, [b]wouldn't[/b] keep dipping their snouts in the trough while the ordinary man in the street was getting shafted.....is that it ?

If we weren't here bickering we would be out there engaged in revolution ?

An interesting hypothesis, although I have to confess that I'm not entirely convinced.

so anyway, thanks for everyone being so happy for me and my £3000 a year payrise 😆

A-A...Principal Teacher then? bearing in mind the noble profession you are involved in!

Ernie,how true would it be fair to say that Cuba's lack of access to the free market has created the type of market (poor choice of word)that Cuba has followed? That the socialist model has been followed so rigidly because they have had no choice.

No rise for the last 3 years. We did get an across the board weeks wage bonus, which whilst being grateful was annoying. There are some of us that work hard and some that make up the numbers, yet we all get rewarded the same!

duckman I am not sure what you mean - I assume you know what kind of state Cuba was prior to the revolution. Socilaism was an integral part of the revolution and the country is better than the state it replaced. It is amasing that no one bothers about the land of the free having a trade emargo on them and also imposing it on others who trade with them. If communism is so poor why are they so worried?

the country is better than the state it replaced.

Not really much of a claim to say that things are better in 2011 than in 1956, though, is it?

A better comparison might be to a country that had similar development/quality of life indicators as Cuba in 1956 and has developed under a capitalist/mixed system since then. Not having my 1956 yearbook handy, I can't make it right now...

I am saying the regime is better than the one it replaced. Less corrupt, less oppressive, more equal etc.
If you want to comapre it to a mixed economy country with a trade emabrgo enforced by the USA then good luck finding another one when you find you year book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

EDIT: i am not claiming everything Cuban is great but it is mor ecomplicated than looking at its trading or wealth. as ernie notes it has excellent education and literacy rates health care etc

I am saying the regime is better than the one it replaced.

If you want to comapre it to a mixed economy country with a trade emabrgo enforced by the USA

What was the purpose of this thread again?

Again - not much of a stretch.

relevance

If the embargo was an obvious consequence of pursuing a socialist economic policy, you can't turn around and use the embargo as a factor mitigating the policy's failure.

Cuba doesn't do spectacularly well in human development indicators. The HDI (as a composite of a bunch of other indicators) has Cuba right in the middle ranked at 85 - just ahead of Peru and just behind Jamaica - a few steps ahead of Paraguay and a few behind North Korea (NB no figures available for 2010 Cuba).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index/Former_reports/2009

I am not sure we can blame socialism for the aggressive imperialist actions of the worlds largest capitalist nation. That is a very hawk view to take are all countries to blame when america [over] reacts?
As i am sure you are aware the HDI uses three measures
1.Life expectancy
2.School years - access to education
3.Mean GDP
IF you look at the first two where does cuba come out and I would assume it is obvious that a socialist country that cant trade will poor on the third.
1. Cuba 34 th one above usa
2. harder to say [find via google obviously]but free at all levels and they spend 10% of their budget on it where as UK is 4% and usa 2%. I would assume they outscore us
3. yes they are poorer I dont need google for that one 😉 but the cause is not just socialism though I accept that having a system not based on the accumulation of wealth will undoubtedly result that you accumulate less than one dedicated to the accumulation of wealth. i am less sure this is better. Better to judge it by what it is trying to achieve and whether it has.
We may be a tad OT no Konabunny

Cuba has done admirably at servicing basic human needs, regrettably at the expense of human rights.

I'd caveat that by saying that having the right to freedom of expression, or association or whatever may count for very little if you have limited access to healthcare, or clean water, or education.

Oh, congrats on the payrise too!

Opps sorry for starting that,I think what I meant was Cuba forced to concentrate on improving the health,education etc of its population because the "free market(sic)" was restricted because of the embargo? Thus keeping the chance for turning a shilling out of education,healthcare etc.I visited Cuba in 2001 on my honeymoon,there has been a bit of window dressing,but if you go out of the tourist compounds (eg,on a bus to the cee-gar factory)then it is rotting.Public works for whatever reason are non-existent.

I am not sure we can blame socialism for the aggressive imperialist actions of the worlds largest capitalist nation.

But the US embargo was an obvious consequence of nationalisation of US assets. The Cuban revolutionary government chose to adopt the policy and must have anticipated that the forces of capital with which it is in continuous struggle will react against it - in fact, they correctly anticipated an invasion. You can't adopt a socialist economic policy and then say "oh, well, it would have been a really good idea and worked much better than it did if only real life hadn't intervened".

a socialist country that cant trade

Cuba [i]can [/i]trade and [i]has always[/i] been able to trade, just not with the United States. It did trade extensively with the Soviet Union and mostly it made a whole bunch of really shit deals, spending large amounts on arms and getting involved in wars of adventurism in Angola, Nicaragua and Ethiopia.

Education is free at all levels and they spend 10% of their budget on it where as UK is 4% and usa 2%. I would assume they outscore us

10% of the budget or 10% of GDP? What is that per student? Spending 10% of income isn't necessarily better than spending 4% if the 4% is larger in gross or per head. Get it?

a system not based on the accumulation of wealth will undoubtedly result that you accumulate less than one dedicated to the accumulation of wealth.

Socialism [b]is [/b]based on the accumulation of wealth, it's just not the accumulation of private wealth.

You may also be interested to hear that Cuba appears to have relatively fallen behind in social service provision since the revolution:

In the late 1950s Cuba was the fourth richest country on Latin America, measured by income per head. It was also fourth by other indices, such the percentage of workers in industry, literacy, per capita electric power and calorific food consumption. It had a developed transport and communications network. (2006 p.7)

In standard of living indices in Latin America, Cuba was first for TVs, telephones, newspaper readership and cars per head; third for radio sets per head, medical doctors per head and average food consumption; and fourth for literacy (76%). (2006 p.19)

These figures serve to illustrate that in the 1950s Cuba was “far more urban, far less agrarian, far more middle class, far less backward” than Castro and his apologists later portrayed it. (Draper 1965 p.103)

...that according to raving neocon running dog capitalists at err [url= http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6408 ]Workers Liberty[/url]. And now Cuba doesn't even crack the top ten of Latin American countries in the HDI and it's experiencing an obesity epidemic just behind the US: http://www.medicc.org/cubahealthreports/chr-article.php?&a=1025

The reacharounds for Cuba are just bollocks, based on a false premise that a) things have got so much better than the revolution and b) that Cubans might be oppressed but at least they're all being educated and kept in health better than anyone else in the region.

What was the purpose of this thread again?

What was the purpose of this thread again?

IMO; It looked JUST like the Cuba of the pre-revolution days.I had done no reading about it before so I went with no opinions.Afterwards I did a bit and depending on your political viewpoint Cuba's failings are either a result of Capitalist machinations,or a cracking example of the rigidity of a model of socialism being unable to adapt to the needs and wants of the people it is supposed to represent.Both at fault I think.No school tomorrow/sunny day = liquid lunch,so I liked this bit 😀

The reacharounds for Cuba are just bollocks

set-up a Works Council so we could have an official forum for discussing pay rises, but Cuban politics is far more interesting

You want to look at Yugoslavia, not Cuba, if workers' councils are your interest: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isr/vol23/no03/schulze.html

Cuba doesn't do spectacularly well in human development indicators.

So HDI is the criteria on which we should base our support for regimes then ? Well Libya has the highest HDI in Africa, that doesn't seem to bother us much though.

It's hardly surprising that Cuba doesn't score high in the HDI. Because whilst it might, and does, score extremely high in life expectancy, education, etc, it has an extremely low GDP per capita. And the reason for that is no mystery - the 60 year trade embargo.

It's hard to fathom just how devastating that has been. It's simular to, for example, if for the last 60 years the UK had faced a total embargo from Europe. And Europe had carried out punitive measures against other countries such as the US, who attempted to trade with the UK. The standard of living in the UK would have plummeted.

In the days when the whole of Latin America was dominated by dictatorships which were controlled by Washington, Cuba's isolation was in effect complete. Today things are different and the US no longer calls the shots. And despite the fact that US companies just a few miles away are still unable to trade with Cuba, Cuba is able to trade with many other countries and, surprise surprise, it's HDI is now rising significantly.

To claim that Cuba has only itself to blame for the embargo because it chose socialism and refused to do as Washington told it to do, is absurd. Cuba just like any other country has the right to chose socialism, and also like any other country, it has the right to nationalise any industries on its own territory. It is the US embargo and the scope of the embargo with its punitive measures against non-US companies which is illegal under international law.

The greatest threat Cuba poses to the US is threat of "an example". The US is fully aware that the embargo will not bring down the Cuba revolution, that's certain. So the purpose of the embargo is not to bring down the government, but to make Cubans as poor and as miserable as possible. This will have the effect of providing "proof" that socialism doesn't work and contain Cuba's influence.

My brother is a microbiologist, the company he works for produces pharmaceutical products which are world leaders in their field. He travels the four corners of the world selling their products. Cuba was once one of his very best clients, and he travelled there many times - apparently they were exceptionally good at paying promptly.

One day some years back his firm was bought up by a US company, all exports to Cuba ceased immediately. A little while ago there were rumours that restrictions might be eased, so he approached the relevant persons requesting whether they could apply for an export license for their products to Cuba. The answer he received was "do you want to carry on working ?", he persisted and asked "what do you mean, I'm just asking whether we can apply for an export license to Cuba". The reply was "do you want to carry on working ? There is no chance of the US government granting an export licence so stop asking the question".

My brother's company produces agar culture media and diagnostic kits to identify infections. Their products are designed solely to help cure sick people from infections - they have no other use. The US government would rather Cubans went sick and if necessary died, than in any way help the Cuban healthcare service. An utterly despicable and inhumane attitude which I wouldn't apply to my worse enemy. Innocent Cubans don't count in the eyes of the US.

Despite all that, Cuba provides a stunning example in terms of healthcare, and today Cuba is providing healthcare assistance to many other Latin American countries. Some years back after Venezuela had come to an arrangement with Cuba for healthcare assistance, Hugo Chavez announced that whilst previously poor Venezuelans had only [i]"sugary water and voodoo"[/i] to rely on when they fell sick, in the future they would access to modern and effective healthcare. Something which never happened when Venezuela was under total US dominance.

.

Cuba has done admirably at servicing basic human needs, regrettably at the expense of human rights.

Earlier this year Amnesty International claimed that Cuba had 75 political prisoners (most have now been released) I am totally mystified how Cuba managed to have only 75 political prisoners, bearing in mind how for the last 60 years its huge neighbour has done everything possible to undermine the government, included an attempted invasion, over 600 attempts to assassinate its president, terrorist attacks, and poured money and resources in covert operations.

Of coarse Cuba doesn't see them as political prisoners but terrorists and people engaged in illegal activities. And I suspect that the US and even the UK have more people in their prisons for having engaged in illegal and political motivated terrorist activities than that. In fact the tiny bit of Cuba which controlled by the US, Guantanamo Bay, has had far more prisoners than that.

These prisoners in Cuba have less legal rights than Nazi war crimals had at the end of WW2

[img] [/img]

A little known fact is that every a week on a Sunday, there is an anti government demonstration which marches through the centre of Cuba's capital Havana.

Straight after mass in their church (is religion allowed in communist countries ?) the "Ladies in White" march to denounce the Cuban government. Unfortunately for the Ladies in White they are not very popular with Cubans, and the counter demonstrations against them are far larger. Although because the Met isn't there, you won't see the police wade in with truncheons.

Of course some will quickly point out that there have been cases of the Ladies in White having been detained by the police. But bearing in mind that they only number a hundred or so, and that they have been demonstrating for literally years, it is very clear that their demonstrations are fully tolerated by the Cuban government - otherwise it would have stopped after the first couple of demonstration and they had all been arrested.

Another little known fact is despite Latin American society being matriarchal, conservative, extremely machismo, and deeply homophobic, Cuba has been in the forefront in granting rights to homosexuals and transsexuals in that region - it decriminalise homosexuality over 30 years ago, and is now considering providing sex change ops on the national health service. The champion of LGBT rights in Cuba is Mariela Castro a psychologist, and niece of Fidel and daughter of Raul.

.

that according to raving neocon running dog capitalists at err Workers Liberty.

I'm surprised at your level of dishonesty concerning that statement konabunny - I wouldn't have expected that from you. Your suggestion that because the "facts" originate from Workers Liberty, they must in some way come from a source which one would expect to be sympathetic towards Cuba, simply exploits peoples ignorance concerning Trotskyites.

I wouldn't expect Workers Liberty to publish anything which would be sympathetic towards Cuba. I wouldn't even expect them to publish anything which was neutral towards Cuba. I would only expect them to publish stuff which darn right hostile towards Cuba. I would expect Workers Liberty to denounce the Cuban government as a "Stalinist Clique".

Throughout their history, Trotskyites have been a thorn in the side of all those who have struggled to achieve real tangible gains for ordinary working people. And whenever I am denounced as a "Stalinist" and a "class collaborator" by Trotskyites, as I invariably am, I take it as a compliment and wear those labels with pride.

.

I haven't had pay rise since EU enlargement.

Who gives a monkeys about Cuba anyway - unless we're talking cigars...

unless we're talking cigars...

Ooh you don't want to start smoking them.........they'll rapidly age you and give you wrinkly skin and rotten teeth.

Have you seen Amy Winehouse since she developed a fancy for them ?...... grim 😐

[img] [/img]

Who gives a monkeys about Cuba anyway

It's actually really interesting...

but it's a sad life being a simian in a Cuban zoo-prison 🙁
http://blog.thecheaproute.com/zoologico-nacional-havana-zoo-cuba/