Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News2 mins ago
So What's The Problem With These Very Sensible Measures?
37 Answers
http://
Surely if enough members of a union want to take action voting should not be an incumberance.
Surely if enough members of a union want to take action voting should not be an incumberance.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the unions have a point. But it's a point somewhat spoiled by the fact that the conditions of 40% absolute support for a party in office weren't met in 1997 either (or, indeed, in any election since 1951). I think it's fair to say that the real problem some Trade Unionists have with our current system of democracy is that on occasion it allows the Tories to win.
-- answer removed --
NEWJUDGE your point about having more than two candidates in an election is valid but what about when they are elected and vote in Parliament? A vote there is Aye or No and as long as at least forty vote, the outcome is valid. Twenty-one from a possible 650 or 3.2% could alter legislation. Is that fair?
-- answer removed --
Is that 51% absolute or 51% relative?
Perhaps the better comparison is with referenda, which also don't have minimum thresholds as a rule, at least not in this country. But even if they did, why should that make a difference. Union votes aren't meant to be a pinnacle of democracy, so it is odd (and almost certainly a product of Conservative ideology rather than any serious need) that they should be the first target of attempts to improve democracy in this country. Trade Unions have spent the last five years losing the argument anyway.
Perhaps the better comparison is with referenda, which also don't have minimum thresholds as a rule, at least not in this country. But even if they did, why should that make a difference. Union votes aren't meant to be a pinnacle of democracy, so it is odd (and almost certainly a product of Conservative ideology rather than any serious need) that they should be the first target of attempts to improve democracy in this country. Trade Unions have spent the last five years losing the argument anyway.
Jim, //Perhaps the better comparison is with referenda, which also don't have minimum thresholds as a rule,//
I don’t think so. Whilst various referenda may be of no interest whatsoever to a proportion of the electorate, I think it’s safe to assume that members of individual unions all share a common interest.
I don’t think so. Whilst various referenda may be of no interest whatsoever to a proportion of the electorate, I think it’s safe to assume that members of individual unions all share a common interest.
Well it's certainly better to compare strike votes with referenda than with General Elections, no? The first two are straight yes-or-no votes but the third has multiple options. Not that the current voting system for MPs is exactly brilliant, but ... General Election v. strikes are so completely different, and referenda v. strikes is at least more similar.
I don't agree with your last assumption, but then in part this is the problem unions face. In principle the measures proposed by the government have some logic, but in practice the Unions will end up almost totally unable to call a legal strike -- because TU members don't share a common interest, or more precisely not enough of them do. Whether or not the measures should take that into account I don't know -- perhaps not, as if it's a really important reason for strike action then it seems reasonable to expect that the members will turn out and vote for it, and if they don't then that is the Union's lookout.
But all the same, it does seem a little that the first target of more stringent democracy is the Trade Union movement. It's not clear that they need to be so democratic in principle, so you have to suspect that this is driven by ideology.
I don't agree with your last assumption, but then in part this is the problem unions face. In principle the measures proposed by the government have some logic, but in practice the Unions will end up almost totally unable to call a legal strike -- because TU members don't share a common interest, or more precisely not enough of them do. Whether or not the measures should take that into account I don't know -- perhaps not, as if it's a really important reason for strike action then it seems reasonable to expect that the members will turn out and vote for it, and if they don't then that is the Union's lookout.
But all the same, it does seem a little that the first target of more stringent democracy is the Trade Union movement. It's not clear that they need to be so democratic in principle, so you have to suspect that this is driven by ideology.
Jim, //Well it's certainly better to compare strike votes with referenda than with General Elections, no?//
No, and for the reason I gave. You can't make comparisons on a sliding scale. It doesn't work.
//I don't agree with your last assumption//
Why not? It stands to reason that people who belong to individual unions have a common interest – their own jobs and working conditions and those of their fellow workers. There is no other reason to belong.
No, and for the reason I gave. You can't make comparisons on a sliding scale. It doesn't work.
//I don't agree with your last assumption//
Why not? It stands to reason that people who belong to individual unions have a common interest – their own jobs and working conditions and those of their fellow workers. There is no other reason to belong.
Of course you can compare on a sliding scale.
I don't agree with your last assumption for various reasons, in part because the reason the Unions are objecting to this is that, demonstrably, a great deal of their members don't have enough interest in what the Union leaders want to strike about.
Also, you can make "common interests" as wide as you like and then it also applies to the nation as a whole. All of us (presumably) want the UK to succeed and conditions to continue improving, so we have a common interest in the right decisions being made for the country. That there remains a strong amount of apathy most of the time doesn't invalidate this. The common interest of the Unions may be more narrow but it doesn't mean that there can be no comparison to referenda.
At any rate, I'm in two minds about these reforms, as hopefully can be seen above. On the one hand, it seems fundamentally wrong to make Union democracy so much more stringent than the democracy that really matters, so you have to suspect that it's an ideologically-driven "attack" from the Tories. On the other hand, the Unions lately are not doing the job they should be doing and have strayed too far into trying to wage a political war. Whilst they have been unsuccessful, perhaps some measure of reform to the Union system can help to protect them against the more militant parts of Unions.
Anyway, we'll see if this passes and how Unions respond.
I don't agree with your last assumption for various reasons, in part because the reason the Unions are objecting to this is that, demonstrably, a great deal of their members don't have enough interest in what the Union leaders want to strike about.
Also, you can make "common interests" as wide as you like and then it also applies to the nation as a whole. All of us (presumably) want the UK to succeed and conditions to continue improving, so we have a common interest in the right decisions being made for the country. That there remains a strong amount of apathy most of the time doesn't invalidate this. The common interest of the Unions may be more narrow but it doesn't mean that there can be no comparison to referenda.
At any rate, I'm in two minds about these reforms, as hopefully can be seen above. On the one hand, it seems fundamentally wrong to make Union democracy so much more stringent than the democracy that really matters, so you have to suspect that it's an ideologically-driven "attack" from the Tories. On the other hand, the Unions lately are not doing the job they should be doing and have strayed too far into trying to wage a political war. Whilst they have been unsuccessful, perhaps some measure of reform to the Union system can help to protect them against the more militant parts of Unions.
Anyway, we'll see if this passes and how Unions respond.
Jim, I can’t help thinking that if the purpose of a call for strike action isn’t of interest to union members, who do indeed all have a common interest which is why they belong to a union, then the call to strike isn’t really warranted.
Gromit, that’s already been mentioned and it doesn’t compare. It’s a choice of two options as opposed to multiple options. It doesn’t work.
Gromit, that’s already been mentioned and it doesn’t compare. It’s a choice of two options as opposed to multiple options. It doesn’t work.
“Twenty-one from a possible 650 or 3.2% could alter legislation. Is that fair?
No Corby, that is manifestly unfair. The quorum level for the House of Commons is far too low and should be set at a much higher figure, I would suggest at least 90%. Commons business should be arranged that almost all MPs are able to attend every session. It is the most important part of their job but time should be allowed for them to attend to other duties such as constituency and committee work
"Eligible to vote = 45 million
No. Votes for Tories = 11 million"
You forgot to add, Gromit:
No. of votes for nobody at all = 15.7m (approx)
So on that basis "nobody at all" has a more valid claim to govern the country. Perhaps they'll make a better job of it!
No Corby, that is manifestly unfair. The quorum level for the House of Commons is far too low and should be set at a much higher figure, I would suggest at least 90%. Commons business should be arranged that almost all MPs are able to attend every session. It is the most important part of their job but time should be allowed for them to attend to other duties such as constituency and committee work
"Eligible to vote = 45 million
No. Votes for Tories = 11 million"
You forgot to add, Gromit:
No. of votes for nobody at all = 15.7m (approx)
So on that basis "nobody at all" has a more valid claim to govern the country. Perhaps they'll make a better job of it!
That would be these measures TTT ?
http://
Those are fine by me, as long as 'business' donors have balloted any shareholders and a £50 limit per year on individual donations.
The Short Money and Cranborne Money may need reviewing.
https:/
https:/
http://
Those are fine by me, as long as 'business' donors have balloted any shareholders and a £50 limit per year on individual donations.
The Short Money and Cranborne Money may need reviewing.
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News6 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Is Biden Trying Wreck The Shop Before He...
News12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.