I think everybody who is passionate about this and fears the consequences has to do it. We need somebody to come out who is not affiliated to a political party and help people identify what would be teh ultimate protest vote. If it is clear there are no patterns it will give all the parties a kick in the teeth.
I'm delighted my party of choice is nearing record numbers of paid up members. I am disappointed/utterly confused that coalition has been ruled out as I feel last time it had a positive moderating effect. Perhaps a three way coalition might be the way top go for the next crucial 5 years?
I'm delighted my party of choice is nearing record numbers of paid up members. I am disappointed/utterly confused that coalition has been ruled out as I feel last time it had a positive moderating effect. Perhaps a three way coalition might be the way top go for the next crucial 5 years?
Some form of coalition would be good, but look at the damage it did to the Lib Dems when we had the Con Dems coalition. The junior partner or partners stand to lose out unless they're very careful.
I'm not so sure. I think the Tories will win and most likely extending their majority. I don't see it being by a lot though. I wouldn't rule out a coalition even if it's not that likely, it's only a 5 seat majority at the moment and as we've seen stranger things have happened.
If there are parties working together like in Ealing then the Tories could well get a bit nervous. A long way to go yet.
I genuinely like the idea of a coalition, and it's a real shame that it was so brutal on the Lib Dems last time; they're the ideal party to benefit at the moment.
The Netherlands (? I think) constantly has a coalition because no party ever manages to gain a majority. This opens the door to one-policy party politics (i.e in the case of Holland again, Geert Wilders is the obvious example), but it does have the effect of better representation for everyone IMO.
Combine more political parties with an alternative to "First Past the Post", and there may be the basis for a system which represents the people more fairly. Electoral reform is needed IMO.
I genuinely like the idea of a coalition, and it's a real shame that it was so brutal on the Lib Dems last time; they're the ideal party to benefit at the moment.
The Netherlands (? I think) constantly has a coalition because no party ever manages to gain a majority. This opens the door to one-policy party politics (i.e in the case of Holland again, Geert Wilders is the obvious example), but it does have the effect of better representation for everyone IMO.
Combine more political parties with an alternative to "First Past the Post", and there may be the basis for a system which represents the people more fairly. Electoral reform is needed IMO.
Our electorate is too stupid for coalitions. The Lib Dems were an extremely junior party in the coalition and their voter base was decimated because they didn't manage to carry out 100% of their manifesto.
I genuinely like the idea of a coalition, and it's a real shame that it was so brutal on the Lib Dems last time; they're the ideal party to benefit at the moment.
The Netherlands (? I think) constantly has a coalition because no party ever manages to gain a majority. This opens the door to one-policy party politics (i.e in the case of Holland again, Geert Wilders is the obvious example), but it does have the effect of better representation for everyone IMO.
Combine more political parties with an alternative to "First Past the Post", and there may be the basis for a system which represents the people more fairly. Electoral reform is needed IMO.
I asked my mate who is Dutch about their system given the recent elections. Didn't know there was about 50 parties. Ridiculous.
I genuinely like the idea of a coalition, and it's a real shame that it was so brutal on the Lib Dems last time; they're the ideal party to benefit at the moment.
The Netherlands (? I think) constantly has a coalition because no party ever manages to gain a majority. This opens the door to one-policy party politics (i.e in the case of Holland again, Geert Wilders is the obvious example), but it does have the effect of better representation for everyone IMO.
Combine more political parties with an alternative to "First Past the Post", and there may be the basis for a system which represents the people more fairly. Electoral reform is needed IMO.
I asked my mate who is Dutch about their system given the recent elections. Didn't know there was about 50 parties. Ridiculous.
As you say, one policy parties.
So the only mate you got is Dutch? Tough times.....
I genuinely like the idea of a coalition, and it's a real shame that it was so brutal on the Lib Dems last time; they're the ideal party to benefit at the moment.
The Netherlands (? I think) constantly has a coalition because no party ever manages to gain a majority. This opens the door to one-policy party politics (i.e in the case of Holland again, Geert Wilders is the obvious example), but it does have the effect of better representation for everyone IMO.
Combine more political parties with an alternative to "First Past the Post", and there may be the basis for a system which represents the people more fairly. Electoral reform is needed IMO.
I asked my mate who is Dutch about their system given the recent elections. Didn't know there was about 50 parties. Ridiculous.
As you say, one policy parties.
Around 80 parties got votes in the UK 2015 general election. One of those parties was Rochdale First though...
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
When in doubt fund it with bankers bonuses. Labour policy since 2008.
I genuinely like the idea of a coalition, and it's a real shame that it was so brutal on the Lib Dems last time; they're the ideal party to benefit at the moment.
The Netherlands (? I think) constantly has a coalition because no party ever manages to gain a majority. This opens the door to one-policy party politics (i.e in the case of Holland again, Geert Wilders is the obvious example), but it does have the effect of better representation for everyone IMO.
Combine more political parties with an alternative to "First Past the Post", and there may be the basis for a system which represents the people more fairly. Electoral reform is needed IMO.
Our electorate is too stupid for coalitions. The Lib Dems were an extremely junior party in the coalition and their voter base was decimated because they didn't manage to carry out 100% of their manifesto.
That's one way of looking at it.
The other could be that they are the "nice party" that voted to pass austerity measures, the bedroom tax and a number of other attacks on the poor and disabled.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
There are two sides to every coin. More power to the unions has every chance it will lead to more strikes as we have seen before. Whilst I am sure you can argue that helps people 'take back control', striking transport services for instance will incur a cost to the economy.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
There are two sides to every coin. More power to the unions has every chance it will lead to more strikes as we have seen before. Whilst I am sure you can argue that helps people 'take back control', striking transport services for instance will incur a cost to the economy.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
They may copy the Tories and run up a massive deficit, or may raise the money from taxes.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
There are two sides to every coin. More power to the unions has every chance it will lead to more strikes as we have seen before. Whilst I am sure you can argue that helps people 'take back control', striking transport services for instance will incur a cost to the economy.
How about allowing them to enter the 21st century, allow electronic ballots and not just limit it to postal votes? If the process is ok for the London majoral election and they trust their own members, why not the unions? Oh, because it would make it easier to ratify any vote. One party, one nation unless you want to use collective bargaining?
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
There are two sides to every coin. More power to the unions has every chance it will lead to more strikes as we have seen before. Whilst I am sure you can argue that helps people 'take back control', striking transport services for instance will incur a cost to the economy.
It will annoy many here, especially those who depend on Southern Rail, when I say that I think strikes are an excellent thing when all else fails. I particularly like stories of management having to step in and work more when people are on strike. I trace the notion of strikes to a couple of things. One is that people operating together rather than alone can be powerful without needing to be rich. The other is the 'you can stick your job' notion. Unless we have slavery nobody can be forced to work, if they risk starvation that is a choice they make, but I love the notion that the 'plebs' are not automatically obliged to be subservient to others however rich or entitled they think they are. If anything I don't think strikes are hard hitting enough when they happen. If Tories believe in the free market they can throw money at the problem, or at least they can try.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
There are two sides to every coin. More power to the unions has every chance it will lead to more strikes as we have seen before. Whilst I am sure you can argue that helps people 'take back control', striking transport services for instance will incur a cost to the economy.
We're talking about ordinary working people here trying to get the best for themselves. In my experience (and I was a union shop steward many many years ago), going on strike is a last resort - the only power a worker has, when negotiations have failed, is to withdraw his or her labour.
Why are people always union bashing, i know there are some unions that are too leftist but primarily they do a good job for its workers. I would rather be in than out. Show me a non unionist worker who has refused a pay rise won by their fellow union workers. The workers rights that you enjoy now weren't happily given over to you.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
There are two sides to every coin. More power to the unions has every chance it will lead to more strikes as we have seen before. Whilst I am sure you can argue that helps people 'take back control', striking transport services for instance will incur a cost to the economy.
It will annoy many here, especially those who depend on Southern Rail, when I say that I think strikes are an excellent thing when all else fails. I particularly like stories of management having to step in and work more when people are on strike. I trace the notion of strikes to a couple of things. One is that people operating together rather than alone can be powerful without needing to be rich. The other is the 'you can stick your job' notion. Unless we have slavery nobody can be forced to work, if they risk starvation that is a choice they make, but I love the notion that the 'plebs' are not automatically obliged to be subservient to others however rich or entitled they think they are. If anything I don't think strikes are hard hitting enough when they happen. If Tories believe in the free market they can throw money at the problem, or at least they can try.
I agree strikes are an important tool but the transport ones really fuck me off. I'm left leaning in my politics and will be voting Labour, but working in sales in the private sector, if I don't like something about my job, I don't have the luxury of pulling together my colleagues and downing tools, I, like millions of others just have to get on with it. There are far more protections afforded to say, tube drivers than there are for employees who work in small companies and are at the mercy of mood swings from company owners.
I had every sympathy for Prison workers when they were considering going on strike because things were dire. I found it inconceivable they could've been committing a crime by walking out. I would advocate nurses and paramedics probably have good reason to go on strike as well given how stretched they are. The transport ones aren't fair on the general public imo
Can you be in a Union at your place of work @cabbles . Unless more laws have changed than I imagined, it is possible to 'get organised' in the private sector isn't it?
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
There are two sides to every coin. More power to the unions has every chance it will lead to more strikes as we have seen before. Whilst I am sure you can argue that helps people 'take back control', striking transport services for instance will incur a cost to the economy.
It will annoy many here, especially those who depend on Southern Rail, when I say that I think strikes are an excellent thing when all else fails. I particularly like stories of management having to step in and work more when people are on strike. I trace the notion of strikes to a couple of things. One is that people operating together rather than alone can be powerful without needing to be rich. The other is the 'you can stick your job' notion. Unless we have slavery nobody can be forced to work, if they risk starvation that is a choice they make, but I love the notion that the 'plebs' are not automatically obliged to be subservient to others however rich or entitled they think they are. If anything I don't think strikes are hard hitting enough when they happen. If Tories believe in the free market they can throw money at the problem, or at least they can try.
I agree strikes are an important tool but the transport ones really fuck me off. I'm left leaning in my politics and will be voting Labour, but working in sales in the private sector, if I don't like something about my job, I don't have the luxury of pulling together my colleagues and downing tools, I, like millions of others just have to get on with it. There are far more protections afforded to say, tube drivers than there are for employees who work in small companies and are at the mercy of mood swings from company owners.
I had every sympathy for Prison workers when they were considering going on strike because things were dire. I found it inconceivable they could've been committing a crime by walking out. I would advocate nurses and paramedics probably have good reason to go on strike as well given how stretched they are. The transport ones aren't fair on the general public imo
But that is because of how the laws changed after Thatcher. You could only afford the same protections if you unionised your entire building. Equally you don't just have to get on with it, you can find a new job. Amazing the amount of people that are shat upon because they can't be bothered or are too worried to look. One of many reasons why a labour market can never be a free market.
All of these ideas Labour have been throwing around.... Loads of new bank holidays, pay rises for the NHS, pay caps removed elsewhere over the public sector, less legislation on unions.
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
OK I will have a go. From top of head.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations). Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
The problem is much of the British electorate can't undertsand the difference between household budget management and national budget management. So - and it is just a little example - if you put moremoney in people's pockets for instance, you actually can generate more money than by taking money away from them. If you put more money in a rich person's pockets they will spend on foreign holidays and cars, poorer people are more likely to by food and spend in this country.
It is logical for me not to spend what I don't have apart from some exceptions - like a mortgage for instance. But it is not always logical for a country to do so. With low interest rates, spending and borrowing can actually mean the deficit is cut if it stimulates teh economy and revenues.
Well technically Southern Rail are the private sector and there are strikes there, certainly it is the case with British Airways. I like strikes because it is a counterbalance to 'you're lucky to have a job' in as much as they say 'you're lucky to have me as a worker'. In the end coming to an agreement is the best solution of course, but sometimes one side will win as with the Junior Doctors losing to Jeremy Hunt, but I hope the rail workers win and we avoid one person operated trains if there are safety issues.
Comments
; )
I am disappointed/utterly confused that coalition has been ruled out as I feel last time it had a positive moderating effect.
Perhaps a three way coalition might be the way top go for the next crucial 5 years?
If there are parties working together like in Ealing then the Tories could well get a bit nervous. A long way to go yet.
The Netherlands (? I think) constantly has a coalition because no party ever manages to gain a majority. This opens the door to one-policy party politics (i.e in the case of Holland again, Geert Wilders is the obvious example), but it does have the effect of better representation for everyone IMO.
Combine more political parties with an alternative to "First Past the Post", and there may be the basis for a system which represents the people more fairly. Electoral reform is needed IMO.
As you say, one policy parties.
; )
Have they actually ever said how they plan to fund this and backfill the hole in the economy it will create?
The other could be that they are the "nice party" that voted to pass austerity measures, the bedroom tax and a number of other attacks on the poor and disabled.
Bank Holidays - there is evidence that this provides a boost to the economy through increased spending by the public, also evidence that this improves health and productivity (and we have one of the lowest productivity rates & longest working hour cultures of industrialised nations).
Also, perhaps naive, but isn't this a case of just not making as much on those days rather than having to fund it and wouldn't all those things that would be made and bought just be made and bought on another day?
NHS - Our current agency costs are prohibitive and run into the billions, so could be called efficiency savings. The NHS is in a crisis of recruitment that will only get worse when we leave the EU, it will cost us billions to use agency staff and meet minimum safety standards.
Unions- Isn't this about, freedom, taking back control and rights at work? Do we have to attach a cost to everything?
Also Corporation tax rise has been mentioned and a reverse of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest.
There are two sides to every coin. More power to the unions has every chance it will lead to more strikes as we have seen before. Whilst I am sure you can argue that helps people 'take back control', striking transport services for instance will incur a cost to the economy.
I trace the notion of strikes to a couple of things. One is that people operating together rather than alone can be powerful without needing to be rich. The other is the 'you can stick your job' notion. Unless we have slavery nobody can be forced to work, if they risk starvation that is a choice they make, but I love the notion that the 'plebs' are not automatically obliged to be subservient to others however rich or entitled they think they are.
If anything I don't think strikes are hard hitting enough when they happen. If Tories believe in the free market they can throw money at the problem, or at least they can try.
I had every sympathy for Prison workers when they were considering going on strike because things were dire. I found it inconceivable they could've been committing a crime by walking out. I would advocate nurses and paramedics probably have good reason to go on strike as well given how stretched they are. The transport ones aren't fair on the general public imo
It is logical for me not to spend what I don't have apart from some exceptions - like a mortgage for instance. But it is not always logical for a country to do so. With low interest rates, spending and borrowing can actually mean the deficit is cut if it stimulates teh economy and revenues.
In the end coming to an agreement is the best solution of course, but sometimes one side will win as with the Junior Doctors losing to Jeremy Hunt, but I hope the rail workers win and we avoid one person operated trains if there are safety issues.