My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
its just gota be Umunna please plzzzzzzzzzzzzz the guy that posted to himself (under another name) that Chuka was going places and a highly intelligent man who should one day lead the party---ho ho ho till it was shown he had posted the message himself---sounds just about right for the new leader of Labour.
said above before they pick a leader decide which direction they are going---left (that works so well) or centre. If its centre let the marxists and socialists form their own party--they keep promising to do it.
Is that it? You're ruling the bloke out because someone in his office (probably him but not proven btw) changed his wiki page to reference a favourable newspaper article suggesting he could be the UK equivalent of Obama? If that article was about me I'd be handing out laminated copies on the high street and taking out billboard adverts drawing attention to it. As most of us would.
Compare this bit of egotism to the current Tory party chairman's "over denying" of him continuing to run his get rich quick scheme under a false name.
its just gota be Umunna please plzzzzzzzzzzzzz the guy that posted to himself (under another name) that Chuka was going places and a highly intelligent man who should one day lead the party---ho ho ho till it was shown he had posted the message himself---sounds just about right for the new leader of Labour.
said above before they pick a leader decide which direction they are going---left (that works so well) or centre. If its centre let the marxists and socialists form their own party--they keep promising to do it.
Agree that's pathetic. Makes him sound nearly as bad as Grant Shapps.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
Reading his biography he sounds interesting, war hero, seems fairly working class (basing that on the fact that he's from Nottingham and doesn't seem to have gone to some sort of private school). Might make a nice change.
Change the record ffs. The country has just elected someone who sent vans out to prowl the streets of London telling illegal immigrants to go home. Was that racist in your opinion?
FFS someone who actually cares for the country and by the sounds of it you hate him? Only good thing about democracy and voting is people le toucan have your say.
What are you going on about? I was replying to someone saying Goodbye Farage you racist something or other. I pointed out what the coalition did. What's your point?
its just gota be Umunna please plzzzzzzzzzzzzz the guy that posted to himself (under another name) that Chuka was going places and a highly intelligent man who should one day lead the party---ho ho ho till it was shown he had posted the message himself---sounds just about right for the new leader of Labour.
said above before they pick a leader decide which direction they are going---left (that works so well) or centre. If its centre let the marxists and socialists form their own party--they keep promising to do it.
Is that it? You're ruling the bloke out because someone in his office (probably him but not proven btw) changed his wiki page to reference a favourable newspaper article suggesting he could be the UK equivalent of Obama? If that article was about me I'd be handing out laminated copies on the high street and taking out billboard adverts drawing attention to it. As most of us would.
Compare this bit of egotism to the current Tory party chairman's "over denying" of him continuing to run his get rich quick scheme under a false name.
its just gota be Umunna please plzzzzzzzzzzzzz the guy that posted to himself (under another name) that Chuka was going places and a highly intelligent man who should one day lead the party---ho ho ho till it was shown he had posted the message himself---sounds just about right for the new leader of Labour.
said above before they pick a leader decide which direction they are going---left (that works so well) or centre. If its centre let the marxists and socialists form their own party--they keep promising to do it.
Is that it? You're ruling the bloke out because someone in his office (probably him but not proven btw) changed his wiki page to reference a favourable newspaper article suggesting he could be the UK equivalent of Obama? If that article was about me I'd be handing out laminated copies on the high street and taking out billboard adverts drawing attention to it. As most of us would.
Compare this bit of egotism to the current Tory party chairman's "over denying" of him continuing to run his get rich quick scheme under a false name.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
My point is that there are some labour supporting posters saying that tories dont deserve to get in as they only got 35% of 66% of the people eligible to vote
But in 2001/5 it was a similar story and I bet it wasnt an issue then.
I agree on the UKIP/SNP argument
The Conservatives have proposed Trade Union Laws where action needs the support of 40% of those entitled to vote. Not looking as if they would propose such a system for themselves though.
Apples and oranges, for pretty obvious reasons
I am glad you pluralised 'reason'. Two reasons could be that it takes away the option of workers to withdraw their labour without punitive sanctions, and that the notion that if something is supported with less than 40% of those entitled to vote it does not have validity, such as the current Conservative government. If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote? The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
Because a strike ballot is a single ballot with two options.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
I get your 40% of MP's within Westminster as a slice, but it is not the whole picture regarding validity. The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action Strike action Further negotiation Go to arbitration Action short of strike action (work to rule) Compromise agreement.
Yeah but in reality they don't.
Well that is your assertion of reality regarding the options for a decision within Trade Unions but I think you'll find that votes for many alternatives exist within the TU's. firefighters for example did not make strike action their first port of call did they, certainly not teachers who have been supposedly working to rule for some time? If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
Douglas Alexander c Salmond b Sturgeon 0 Ed Davey b Cameron 0 Jim Murphy lbw Sturgeon 0 Simon Hughes b Miliband 0 Vince Cable c Osborne b Cameron 0 Esther McVey lbw Miliband 0 Charles Kennedy retired pissed b Sturgeon 0 Danny Alexander hit wicket b Sturgeon 0 David Laws lbw May 0 George Galloway stumped Cooper b Miliband 0 Michael Moore b Sturgeon 0 Mark Reckless lbw Cameron 0 Ed Balls hit wicket b Cameron 0 Nigel Farage b Cameron 0
PS Now that the Tories have a clear majority, they will no doubt vote through a change of boundaries, so that their majority will increase in time for 2020.
"the truth is somewhere in the middle" tory polling guru - commenting on the different between exit and all other polls 1) There is no way the SNP have won 95% of Scottish seats. If the they have then that's the end of the union! 2) unlikely that lib Dems down to 10 - I suspect 20-30 is more likely 3) marginals too close to call 4) what will the Tory / Lib Dem total be and will the Lib Dems "cross the floor"
Why do I say that? "call me Dave" has run a toxic anti Scottish, anti immigrant campaign. Miliband has been poor but I value the union and membership of the EU. I suspect the DUP value the union too!
Let's see the numbers evolve but I can't see the Lib Dems signing up as a very, very junior partner, especially if Labour have more than the exit poll suggests. It's in their interests to switch main parties not become a party of the centre right.
Comments
If the current government is valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote, then why wouldn't strike action also be valid with less than 40% of those entitled to vote?
The reasons are not obvious to me, especially the philosophical reasons regarding voting.
A general election is made up of 650 ballots with upwards of 5 options on each ballot.
The government isn't even elected by people, it gains its support from elected MPs in Parliament, so as long as at least 40% of MPs support a Government, then it is legitimate as per the same conditions that 40% of eligible voters support a strike in a ballot.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/general-election-2015
The options on a ballot paper for Parliament could be as little as two, and a strike ballot could easily have five options, maybe more e.g:
No action
Strike action
Further negotiation
Go to arbitration
Action short of strike action (work to rule)
Compromise agreement.
Just goes to show you can't underestimate the power of fear.
If you want to introduce reality Conservative action is not designed to improve democracy within the Trade Union but a method to make it harder for action to happen disguised as a boost for Union 'democracy'.
Douglas Alexander c Salmond b Sturgeon 0
Ed Davey b Cameron 0
Jim Murphy lbw Sturgeon 0
Simon Hughes b Miliband 0
Vince Cable c Osborne b Cameron 0
Esther McVey lbw Miliband 0
Charles Kennedy retired pissed b Sturgeon 0
Danny Alexander hit wicket b Sturgeon 0
David Laws lbw May 0
George Galloway stumped Cooper b Miliband 0
Michael Moore b Sturgeon 0
Mark Reckless lbw Cameron 0
Ed Balls hit wicket b Cameron 0
Nigel Farage b Cameron 0
PS Now that the Tories have a clear majority, they will no doubt vote through a change of boundaries, so that their majority will increase in time for 2020.
You're beyond parody now.