|
Hermit Road
3:08 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
Passerby66 2:01 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election
I agree.
|
Prometheus50
2:19 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
,
You give more credence to the 24% that didn't vote than they deserve and it is a classic method of trying to undermine a particular result by arrogantly assuming the non voters would have voted for anyone other than the winner, which is utter bunkum
Non voters have there reasons for not doing so and they deserve to keep the anonymity their non participation warrants
|
Passerby66
2:01 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
" I think all that as a libertarian who trusts in his own ability to decide how to participate in the union I'm a member of. I don't need, nor do I want, the state to nanny me in this relationship."
All of which I would back if it was a situation that only affected the unions and their member. However, they don't., the strikes also affect the rest of us that are not members of the unions. You speak as if it is only the unions who matter; but those unions in monopoly positions (ie those who run the tube) deliberately try to cause as much inconvenience to everyone else as possible. That is why I support the legislation.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
,
1:51 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
Prom50, Goldsmith got 58% of those that voted. However seeing as 24% of the constituency electorate did not vote it turns out that he did not get more than 50% of Richmond Park electors to support him.
Simple in it?
I am clear that under our constitution the government is allowed to run the country. That said though we all know that it's mandate is not granted by a majority of voters or even those that voted.
For several generations we had a virtual two party monopoly at Westminster. That has changed in a way that means unless our voting system updates Westminster will be unrepresentative of the country as a whole.
|
Hermit Road
1:48 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
I ask again, why are the proposed new rules on strikes unfair and why should unions be held to a lesser standard in their ballots."
I don't think they should be held to a lesser standard, and I don't think that requiring a majority of those that vote is a lesser standard. I also think that it is for union members to decide their constitutions. I think all that as a libertarian who trusts in his own ability to decide how to participate in the union I'm a member of. I don't need, nor do I want, the state to nanny me in this relationship.
|
Passerby66
1:33 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
But if less than 50% couldn't be bothered to vote in the GE then it would be thanks to apathetic/lazy bastards. It doesn't make it any less democratic.
But if it were a referrendum with a yes/no answer and less than 50% of people voted could you claim legitimacy for the result?
I see both yours and hermit's point - I just disagee with it. When union call a trike they put the entire power of the union behind the strike and claim to present the will of all their members even if only 25% have voted. I think this is wrong.
We will probably never agree but it is nice to be able to argue a point with people sensibly nonethless, so thanks for that.
|
Passerby66
1:27 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
"But in the existing situation you assume the opposite and assume that anyone who does not vote goes along with the majority who do"
No, I assume that if you don't vote, you don't have a voice.
- I see your point but I have resrevations about it. By your reckoning if only 10 people out of a union of millions bothered to vote then the strike action would still have legitimacy?
You would certainly question the legitimacy of the general election if less than 50% of the electorate turned out wouldn't you?
In addition, if you don't vote and you don't want to strike, you don't have to strike.
- But there is an enormous amount of pressure then put on people not to scab is there not?
|
The Kronic
1:27 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
*more than 50%
|
The Kronic
1:23 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
Passerby66 1:20
But if less than 50% couldn't be bothered to vote in the GE then it would be thanks to apathetic/lazy bastards. It doesn't make it any less democratic.
|
Passerby66
1:21 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
A consequence of Taliban Javid's reforms might be that they will entice more union members to vote for strike action rather than shrug their shoulders.
And if it does then that is a good thing as they will have the mandate from their members for the action.
|
Passerby66
1:20 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
Hermit - you are correct, you can't use one point in the manifesto to gain legitimacy and nobody agrees with all of a manifesto.
Re your second point - I feel that i have answered that again and again below:
A) The turnout in the general election was 66.1% of the electorate. If it had been less than 50% of the electorate then you would have been the first to claim that the govt lacked legitimacy and I would have agreed with you. Why should unions be held to a lower standard?
A) a call to strike is a yes/no answer akin to a referendum where the globally accepted view is that it requires over 50% of the electorate to vote in favour of the proposal to give it legitimacy - whereas a general election has 10+ options to vote so a majority decision (in this case under FPTP) is fair. If the Union gives more than two options on it's ballot then a majority decision would also be fair.
I ask again, why are the proposed new rules on strikes unfair and why should unions be held to a lesser standard in their ballots.
|
The Kronic
1:11 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
A consequence of Taliban Javid's reforms might be that they will entice more union members to vote for strike action rather than shrug their shoulders.
|
Hermit Road
1:10 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
"But in the existing situation you assume the opposite and assume that anyone who does not vote goes along with the majority who do"
No, I assume that if you don't vote, you don't have a voice. In addition, if you don't vote and you don't want to strike, you don't have to strike.
|
Hermit Road
1:06 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
Passerby, I said a particular was of justifying it was an unwinnable argument. To my knowledge, they haven't argued in that way.
In addition, to suggest that everybody voted for them because they were convinced by a manifesto promise on changing the rules for union ballots, is a little far-fetched.
Where I do agree is that the government were elected, I would seriously question though how you can at one point maintain that their legionary comes from a minority of voters, whilst simultaneously questioning the legitimacy of a decision taken by the majority of voters in a union ballot.
The two positions are clearly at odds.
|
Passerby66
1:04 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
You don't present a reason why they, as fee paying members, adults who are free to make a decision, should have that decision usurped. The argument that you can assume someone's intentions by their absence of a vote, is deeply flawed and would have repercussions beyond Trade Unions
I agree. But in the existing situation you assume the opposite and assume that anyone who does not vote goes along with the majority who do - which is in itself a false assumption.
Calling a strike is call to take a specific action - therefore the onus should be on the strike callers to prove that they have the support of the majority of their members, not on anybody else to prove that they so not.
Genuinely, I do not understand what the objection is to requiring a strike to have over 50% of members voting. Could you explain to me what it is? I'm not having a go, and I want an adult discussion about this - I just genuinely do not understand why you feel that this is so unfair.
|
Passerby66
12:58 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
Hermit - It was in the Conservative manifesto on pages 18 & 19 (I have just checked: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf)
Since it was in the manifesto and the govt was democratically elected I don't think that you can argue that it is an unwinnable argument - they have already won. You just disagree with it.
I think that even without the manifesto element the argument makes sense though as raising the threshold for strike action stops strikes being convened by a militant (an unrepresentative) wing of a trade union and a 50%+ turnout gives the strike legitimacy.
Strikes should not be banned and as I mentioned below the railtrack vote is a wholly legitimate way for the union to express grievance as they have the mandate from the majority of their members.
|
Hermit Road
12:51 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
"We all know that people who feel more strongly about a subject are more likely to vote for it and if Unions are taking strike action on the results of a ballot with (for example) only 25% of their members bothering to vote it is easy to see how the extremes (who are unrepresentative of the membership a a whole) can constantly call the tune."
By that logic, those who don't vote against, don't feel strongly about it either way and are happy to go along with the majority. You don't present a reason why they, as fee paying members, adults who are free to make a decision, should have that decision usurped. The argument that you can assume someone's intentions by their absence of a vote, is deeply flawed and would have repercussions beyond Trade Unions
|
Hermit Road
12:45 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
If it isn't an unwinnable argument, they should argue it. I haven't heard the government do that though. I've heard them try to argue it from a democratic legitimacy stance, but that's very unconvincing.
|
Prometheus50
12:34 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/what-labour-must-do-is-estrange-its-awful-voters/
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:05 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
Hermit Road 11:19 Wed May 13
'If the government claimed that they were doing it to make it harder for people to exercise their right to withdraw their labour, then fair enough. They won't do that though, because it is an unwinnable argument. '
It isn't an unwinnable argument. Over the years employers have lost many of their rights to employ or dismiss whomsoever they please. This is a mere rebalancing.
|
Passerby66
11:56 Wed May 13
Re: The 2015 General Election - Miliband, Clegg and Farage resign
|
Just to add to my last post - I think a mandate to strike should require more than 50% of members to vote and if it is a yes/no answer I think it should require 51% of the voters to confirm a position for the vote to be carried.
However, if there are more than two options on the ballot then the answer that gets the most votes should win - however, it should still require more than 50% of the electorate to vote in the first place to be legitimate.
In the latest general election 66.1% of the electorate votesd. Would anyone here think that there was legitimacy to the government if less than 50% of the electorate had bothered to vote? I wouldn't, and I don't see why the rules should be any different for the Trade Unions.
We all know that people who feel more strongly about a subject are more likely to vote for it and if Unions are taking strike action on the results of a ballot with (for example) only 25% of their members bothering to vote it is easy to see how the extremes (who are unrepresentative of the membership a a whole) can constantly call the tune.
I have absolutely no problem with the railtrack strike, although it will be a pain in the arse for me personally, as the union has a clear madate of support from members for the strike (60% turnout and 80% support). This action is (again IMO) entirely legitimate and and utterly valid way for the union to act.
|
|
|
|
