This is what the people want. If the public didn't want this, then 60% of the nation would not have elected Corbyn to power.
Cameron's time is up. It's about time he did the decent thing and resigned. The people have spoken.
What? Only about half a million people voted, and they were either Labour members or people who had paid their £3 to vote (many of those to cause mischief). This was not a general election, you know.
This is what the people want. If the public didn't want this, then 60% of the nation would not have elected Corbyn to power.
Cameron's time is up. It's about time he did the decent thing and resigned. The people have spoken.
Maths is not your strong point is it?
60% of the nation (65 million) did not elect Corbyn to power.
He got 251,417 votes which was 60% of those eligible to vote which equates to 0.38% of the UK population. Hardly a massive mandate if you want to put it nationally. He also does not have any power in governmental terms.
You have to laugh. Labour gets a leader like Corbyn, and the Unions try to pretend they can bring the Govt down.
A bit of nostalgia for the 70s style of politics for the blinkered moaning classes.
Hopefully the next Labour Conference will be like those from the old days when they're all calling each comrade whilst spouting utter shite. It was hilarious viewing.
The right for a militant possible politically motivated minority to dictate the rules.;-)
Presumably even the unions would have to agree that there should only be a strike if a given percentage of its members vote for one so is the elephant in the room the proposed 40% criteria or the logic?
If it's the latter, which, judging by the unions inability to offer a credible argument as to what's so wrong with the notion I'm inclined to think it is, I don't envisage the general public supporting the unions on this.
The unions have been trying to argue that political parties don't have to win 40% of the vote in order to win an election so therefore this is singling them out.
That's a flawed and particularly weak logical argument. They're not comparing like for like.
It is a perfectly apt point to make. If only just over 20% of the electorate voted Conservative in the GE then by the government's TU logic they don't have a mandate to govern.
But that's rubbish - they do have a mandate, just as union members should not have the right to abstain counted as a vote against industrial action.
It is incredibly authoritarian and anti-democratic.
The unions have been trying to argue that political parties don't have to win 40% of the vote in order to win an election so therefore this is singling them out.
That's a flawed and particularly weak logical argument. They're not comparing like for like.
The unions want to use the technology of the 20th Century (email/text) to conduct ballots in the 21st Century and increase turn out to levels closer to show of hands ballots.
The government dont fancy that. (No Sh*t?)
The ridiculous Francis (Jerry-can) Maude does not want that but he does want subs to be paid by direct debit.
We can all see through the nonsense. If there is a Cameron removing General Strike the Tories will have brought it on themselves.
You have to laugh. Labour gets a leader like Corbyn, and the Unions try to pretend they can bring the Govt down.
A bit of nostalgia for the 70s style of politics for the blinkered moaning classes.
Hopefully the next Labour Conference will be like those from the old days when they're all calling each comrade whilst spouting utter shite. It was hilarious viewing.
Dusting off the old riot shield and dirty tricks manual are we?
It is a perfectly apt point to make. If only just over 20% of the electorate voted Conservative in the GE then by the government's TU logic they don't have a mandate to govern.
But that's rubbish - they do have a mandate, just as union members should not have the right to abstain counted as a vote against industrial action.
It is incredibly authoritarian and anti-democratic.
Although Corbyn maybe got a few votes off the back of the other three's abstention on the Welfare bill being seen as tacit support for it
Dusting off the old riot shield and dirty tricks manual are we?
If the Unions decide it's time for them to run the country (into the ground) like when I was a lad, and use intimidation as a tool, then the riot shields will certainly have to come out.
Maybe Ms May might change her mind about Boris's watering can
Indeed as the saying goes even the most timid dog will eventually bite you if you keep kicking it, Cameron simply can not declare war on the poor, the sick the disabled, the low paid and then turn on the very people who have the power to protect them and expect them to roll over and ask for more kicks please,
Cameron started this war when he had what was basically only 'Tory lite' party as his 'opposition' he thought he would have a free ride, he thought he could continue his war against the weakest and the most vulnerable in this country even with his tiny 12 seat majority, he thought this because he made the biggest mistake of his arrogant life,
he underestimated his opponents, he probably expected business as usual from the Labour leadership contest, he probably thought he was safe all the way to 2020 when the three (most likely to have the winner amongst them) Labour leadership candidates refused to vote against his next phase in the destruction of Labour's welfare system, and his war against the less well off,
I mean, even a staunch leftie like me had only barely heard of Jeremy Corbyn back then, and like most I thought "nice gesture, but lets be serious we are dreaming if we think he has a hope in hell of winning"
So Cameron and his crew must have been rubbing their sweaty soft little hands with glee at the thought of being allowed to 'get on with the job' of destroying everything that the Labour party fought so hard to establish,
so what if he only has a piffling majority, the 'so called' Labour party had, to all intents and purposes surrendered,
there was going to be no opposition coming from that direction, full steam ahead and lets finish what Margaret started and wipe out the trades unions,
Well Dave,
here we are, and things have not quite gone according to plan have they?
it seems those bloody annoying peasants are revolting again, they seem to have found their voice, got themselves a new leader, drawn a line in the sand and said, "cross it, we dare you"
hence this talk of "threats to national security" cause he knew that the tide has turned he knows what's coming, he's not talking about Russia or terrorists, or threats from without, he's back in Margaret's 'game' he was getting in a pre emptive strike against the "enemy within"
Now do ya see why some of us felt very uneasy at the words being used by the Tories?
he wanted a fight, but as ever, he didn't expect any opposition, wasnt expecting anyone to fight back, those days are gone David, you wanted a fight,
so don't blame the down trodden and the abused Dave, don't blame the unions,
If the Unions decide it's time for them to run the country (into the ground) like when I was a lad, and use intimidation as a tool, then the riot shields will certainly have to come out.
Maybe Ms May might change her mind about Boris's watering can
Fantasy. At no time did the TUs want to "run the country".
You are speaking of millions upon millions of dissatisfied workers and thousands of bad employers.
Have you ever asked yourself why they were dissatisfied?
Good grief. I'm not. The way I look at it, workers are being given rights.
The right to be protected against Union harassment. The right to decide whether to make a political contribution. The right to greater transparency as to what the Union is up to. The right to ensure that all strikes reflect the will of a majority of workers and not a minority of workers.
But good grief, no doubt you'll see it differently and see all the above as outrageous assaults on democracy.
Good grief. I'm not. The way I look at it, workers are being given rights.
The right to be protected against Union harassment. The right to decide whether to make a political contribution. The right to greater transparency as to what the Union is up to. The right to ensure that all strikes reflect the will of a majority of workers and not a minority of workers.
But good grief, no doubt you'll see it differently and see all the above as outrageous assaults on democracy.
:D:D:D:D:D
Classic stuff David. That you actually believe this topsy-turvy way of looking at things is on the face of it unbelievable, but when your opposition to the concept of collective bargaining (which is what trade unionism is) is taken into account it is perfectly understandable.
Classic stuff David. That you actually believe this topsy-turvy way of looking at things is on the face of it unbelievable, but when your opposition to the concept of collective bargaining (which is what trade unionism is) is taken into account it is perfectly understandable.
At least I believe in rights for workers.
You couldn't give a damn about them - don't even try and pretend otherwise. Your entire position is simply about protecting the power of the Unions.
Comments
Good grief. I trust you are jesting here.
What? Only about half a million people voted, and they were either Labour members or people who had paid their £3 to vote (many of those to cause mischief). This was not a general election, you know.
Maths is not your strong point is it?
60% of the nation (65 million) did not elect Corbyn to power.
He got 251,417 votes which was 60% of those eligible to vote which equates to 0.38% of the UK population. Hardly a massive mandate if you want to put it nationally. He also does not have any power in governmental terms.
A bit of nostalgia for the 70s style of politics for the blinkered moaning classes.
Hopefully the next Labour Conference will be like those from the old days when they're all calling each comrade whilst spouting utter shite. It was hilarious viewing.
It is a perfectly apt point to make. If only just over 20% of the electorate voted Conservative in the GE then by the government's TU logic they don't have a mandate to govern.
But that's rubbish - they do have a mandate, just as union members should not have the right to abstain counted as a vote against industrial action.
It is incredibly authoritarian and anti-democratic.
The unions want to use the technology of the 20th Century (email/text) to conduct ballots in the 21st Century and increase turn out to levels closer to show of hands ballots.
The government dont fancy that. (No Sh*t?)
The ridiculous Francis (Jerry-can) Maude does not want that but he does want subs to be paid by direct debit.
We can all see through the nonsense. If there is a Cameron removing General Strike the Tories will have brought it on themselves.
Dusting off the old riot shield and dirty tricks manual are we?
Although Corbyn maybe got a few votes off the back of the other three's abstention on the Welfare bill being seen as tacit support for it
The trouble is you can't always tell with some on here.:)
Ha!
Try crossing a picket line staffed by John McDonnell types! As usual - theory over reality,
If the Unions decide it's time for them to run the country (into the ground) like when I was a lad, and use intimidation as a tool, then the riot shields will certainly have to come out.
Maybe Ms May might change her mind about Boris's watering can
Indeed as the saying goes even the most timid dog will eventually bite you if you keep kicking it, Cameron simply can not declare war on the poor, the sick the disabled, the low paid and then turn on the very people who have the power to protect them and expect them to roll over and ask for more kicks please,
Cameron started this war when he had what was basically only 'Tory lite' party as his 'opposition' he thought he would have a free ride, he thought he could continue his war against the weakest and the most vulnerable in this country even with his tiny 12 seat majority, he thought this because he made the biggest mistake of his arrogant life,
he underestimated his opponents, he probably expected business as usual from the Labour leadership contest, he probably thought he was safe all the way to 2020 when the three (most likely to have the winner amongst them) Labour leadership candidates refused to vote against his next phase in the destruction of Labour's welfare system, and his war against the less well off,
I mean, even a staunch leftie like me had only barely heard of Jeremy Corbyn back then, and like most I thought "nice gesture, but lets be serious we are dreaming if we think he has a hope in hell of winning"
So Cameron and his crew must have been rubbing their sweaty soft little hands with glee at the thought of being allowed to 'get on with the job' of destroying everything that the Labour party fought so hard to establish,
so what if he only has a piffling majority, the 'so called' Labour party had, to all intents and purposes surrendered,
there was going to be no opposition coming from that direction, full steam ahead and lets finish what Margaret started and wipe out the trades unions,
Well Dave,
here we are, and things have not quite gone according to plan have they?
it seems those bloody annoying peasants are revolting again, they seem to have found their voice, got themselves a new leader, drawn a line in the sand and said, "cross it, we dare you"
hence this talk of "threats to national security" cause he knew that the tide has turned he knows what's coming, he's not talking about Russia or terrorists, or threats from without, he's back in Margaret's 'game' he was getting in a pre emptive strike against the "enemy within"
Now do ya see why some of us felt very uneasy at the words being used by the Tories?
he wanted a fight, but as ever, he didn't expect any opposition, wasnt expecting anyone to fight back, those days are gone David, you wanted a fight,
so don't blame the down trodden and the abused Dave, don't blame the unions,
remember YOU sowed the wind, not us.
i don't cross picket lines, but I don't intimidate folk either.
Laws are already in place on that, let the powers that.be enforce them if that is needed. The rest is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.
Fantasy. At no time did the TUs want to "run the country".
You are speaking of millions upon millions of dissatisfied workers and thousands of bad employers.
Have you ever asked yourself why they were dissatisfied?
Good grief. I'm not. The way I look at it, workers are being given rights.
The right to be protected against Union harassment. The right to decide whether to make a political contribution. The right to greater transparency as to what the Union is up to. The right to ensure that all strikes reflect the will of a majority of workers and not a minority of workers.
But good grief, no doubt you'll see it differently and see all the above as outrageous assaults on democracy.
Hmm. You're younger than I thought.
And, as usual, completely wrong.
I think I can.
I can spot a fibber about alleged workplace disputes at fifty yards as well
I can never imagine a scenario that would ever make me even consider crossing a picket line,
What post are you referring to about fibbing? Because I don't recall me saying anything
I didn't mean you ;-)
Classic stuff David. That you actually believe this topsy-turvy way of looking at things is on the face of it unbelievable, but when your opposition to the concept of collective bargaining (which is what trade unionism is) is taken into account it is perfectly understandable.
At least I believe in rights for workers.
You couldn't give a damn about them - don't even try and pretend otherwise. Your entire position is simply about protecting the power of the Unions.
And you think I'm the topsy turvy one...
Well, I was an adult from the beginning of the '70s onwards - at no time since then have the trade unions wanted to "run the country".
They have certainly come into conflict with bad employers and anti-TU governments, but run the country?