Union bashing
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 ChuFukka  15 May 15 5.18pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop. Without a government, the country would be left utterly stagnant. 'Running' a country isn't just about administration, it's about progress, representation and direction. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 5.19pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stuk Top half 15 May 15 5.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop.
We do need a government or the EU would arse rape us to death.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 May 15 5.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop. Without a government, the country would be left utterly stagnant. 'Running' a country isn't just about administration, it's about progress, representation and direction. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 5.19pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 15 May 15 5.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2015 5.20pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop. Without a government, the country would be left utterly stagnant. 'Running' a country isn't just about administration, it's about progress, representation and direction. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 5.19pm)
Which war?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ChuFukka 15 May 15 5.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2015 5.20pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop. Without a government, the country would be left utterly stagnant. 'Running' a country isn't just about administration, it's about progress, representation and direction. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 5.19pm)
There are no words to describe how cataclysmically incorrect that is. Shocking, I know...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 15 May 15 5.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop. Without a government, the country would be left utterly stagnant. 'Running' a country isn't just about administration, it's about progress, representation and direction. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 5.19pm) Hence the short term bit. As for Progress, Representation and Direction - I think you've mistaken the ideology with the reality - esp in regards to Conservatism, which really has always been more traditionally minded, rather than progressive (one of its greatest traits has been careful change along with economic pragmatism) I wouldn't say any government has ever been about progress, representation and direction, and that being popular, winning elections and the status quo has been the priority of every government since Thatcher (who definitely had a progressive agenda, one that was sometimes very flawed and ideologically driven with direction - I'm biased, but she definitely had an agenda, a direction, an ideology and was into progress). The exception is probably Blair thinking about it, who was all about 'Progress and Direction'. His progress and his direction.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 May 15 5.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 15 May 2015 5.23pm
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2015 5.20pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop. Without a government, the country would be left utterly stagnant. 'Running' a country isn't just about administration, it's about progress, representation and direction. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 5.19pm)
Which war?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 15 May 15 5.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2015 5.47pm
Quote derben at 15 May 2015 5.23pm
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2015 5.20pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop. Without a government, the country would be left utterly stagnant. 'Running' a country isn't just about administration, it's about progress, representation and direction. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 5.19pm)
Which war?
Interesting period that. Napoleon comes to power after the French Revolution overthrew a tyranny, killed loads of people, then turned on each other. He then becomes a more absolute monarch than those they had overthrown and proceeds to 'free' Europe by putting his relations in charge of the countries he invades. Of course 'the left' in Britain at the time thought he was great. Bit like the left's hero worship of Stalin in the 1930s.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ChuFukka 15 May 15 6.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.29pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.13pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.
Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above.
No you don't, the government doesn't run the country, it represents the people. The civil service runs the country. Mid-Long term it could be problematic, but you could easily default to the Lords until such times as a government could be formed. Parliament has long breaks etc and the country doesn't just stop. Without a government, the country would be left utterly stagnant. 'Running' a country isn't just about administration, it's about progress, representation and direction. Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 5.19pm) Hence the short term bit. As for Progress, Representation and Direction - I think you've mistaken the ideology with the reality - esp in regards to Conservatism, which really has always been more traditionally minded, rather than progressive (one of its greatest traits has been careful change along with economic pragmatism) I wouldn't say any government has ever been about progress, representation and direction, and that being popular, winning elections and the status quo has been the priority of every government since Thatcher (who definitely had a progressive agenda, one that was sometimes very flawed and ideologically driven with direction - I'm biased, but she definitely had an agenda, a direction, an ideology and was into progress). The exception is probably Blair thinking about it, who was all about 'Progress and Direction'. His progress and his direction.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 15 May 15 6.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.14pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.10pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action. There's no inconsistency. We need somebody to run the country - what do you suggest we do if there's low turnout; have no government? Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above. EDIT: and just to be clear, I don't accept for a second that you truly believe that last sentence, which, in itself, is a neat little straw man (ironically). Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 4.59pm) No, what I'm saying is that you can contrast the situation. 35% of the Electorate didn't vote, and the Conservatives got 36% of the votes of those who did. The interest of the conservatives isn't in fairness, democracy in unions, its about reducing their capacity to act and most notably to take strike action. I don't doubt that the Conservatives want to quell the (admittedly diminishing) powers of unions - and I'm absolutely behind them on that one. However, there is simply no comparison between a general election and a yes/no strike vote.
The issue of what constitutes legitimacy generally in terms of a voting outcome is,viewed more objectively as opposed to someone with an axe to grind, perfectly legitimate to raise .You may not agree but that doesn't mean its not a reasonable point of view to contrast a government whose legitimacy rests on less than 40% of those who voted (and where there is no minimum turnout requirement of those eligible to vote) with the requirements for the outcome of a vote by union members to exercise the right of members to strike if approved in accordance with the union's rules. As for suggesting that it is "intentionally diversionary" to simply raise as a question a reasonable point of view that you don't agree with and which doesn't fit your agenda of what are pertinent points to raise,, that reflects you seeking to ,that's simply silly IMO. Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 6.49pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 15 May 15 6.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 6.43pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.14pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.10pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action. There's no inconsistency. We need somebody to run the country - what do you suggest we do if there's low turnout; have no government? Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above. EDIT: and just to be clear, I don't accept for a second that you truly believe that last sentence, which, in itself, is a neat little straw man (ironically). Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 4.59pm) No, what I'm saying is that you can contrast the situation. 35% of the Electorate didn't vote, and the Conservatives got 36% of the votes of those who did. The interest of the conservatives isn't in fairness, democracy in unions, its about reducing their capacity to act and most notably to take strike action. I don't doubt that the Conservatives want to quell the (admittedly diminishing) powers of unions - and I'm absolutely behind them on that one. However, there is simply no comparison between a general election and a yes/no strike vote.
The issue of what constitutes legitimacy generally in terms of a voting outcome is,viewed more objectively as opposed to someone with an axe to grind, perfectly legitimate to raise .You may not agree but that doesn't mean its not a reasonable point of view to contrast a government whose legitimacy rests on less than 40% of those who voted (and where there is no minimum turnout requirement of those eligible to vote) with the requirements for the outcome of a vote by union members to exercise the right of members to strike if approved in accordance with the union's rules. As for suggesting that it is "intentionally diversionary" to simply raise a reasonable point of view that you don't agree with as a question,that's simply silly,intentionally or otherwise. Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 6.46pm) You should change your name to pompouseagle
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ChuFukka 15 May 15 6.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 6.43pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 5.14pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 5.10pm
Quote ChuFukka at 15 May 2015 4.52pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 May 2015 4.41pm
Quote Stuk at 15 May 2015 4.31pm
Quote legaleagle at 15 May 2015 4.20pm
Quote ambrose7 at 15 May 2015 3.58pm
There seems to be a lot of opposition on this thread stating why we should have trade unions and why they should be able to strike, and very few addressing why a 40% pass rate is so unreasonable Perhaps we should link the % votes ability to strike to the % votes ability of a government to proclaim its legitimacy given the percentage of votes it got? At the moment,that would lower the % rate to 36.9%. A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no. Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other. I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure. The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter. But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers. People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action. There's no inconsistency. We need somebody to run the country - what do you suggest we do if there's low turnout; have no government? Also, the two scenarios aren't remotely comparable, as I explained in my post above. EDIT: and just to be clear, I don't accept for a second that you truly believe that last sentence, which, in itself, is a neat little straw man (ironically). Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 4.59pm) No, what I'm saying is that you can contrast the situation. 35% of the Electorate didn't vote, and the Conservatives got 36% of the votes of those who did. The interest of the conservatives isn't in fairness, democracy in unions, its about reducing their capacity to act and most notably to take strike action. I don't doubt that the Conservatives want to quell the (admittedly diminishing) powers of unions - and I'm absolutely behind them on that one. However, there is simply no comparison between a general election and a yes/no strike vote.
The issue of what constitutes legitimacy generally in terms of a voting outcome is,viewed more objectively as opposed to someone with an axe to grind, perfectly legitimate to raise .You may not agree but that doesn't mean its not a reasonable point of view to contrast a government whose legitimacy rests on less than 40% of those who voted (and where there is no minimum turnout requirement of those eligible to vote) with the requirements for the outcome of a vote by union members to exercise the right of members to strike if approved in accordance with the union's rules. As for suggesting that it is "intentionally diversionary" to simply raise as a question a reasonable point of view that you don't agree with and which doesn't fit your agenda of what are pertinent points to raise,, that reflects you seeking to ,that's simply silly IMO. Edited by legaleagle (15 May 2015 6.49pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.