Trade Union Bill passed

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As for the manifesto what do it and a soiled nappy have in common? They're both full of faeces!

I take it that is a generalisation you make about all manifestos of political parties that fought the last General Election...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And yet the Conservatives have absolute power despite getting less than 2 million more votes than Labour. Democracy is wonderful thing but not this **** poor implementation.

Why is it that I feel that you would have made a similar statement but with a change of innuendo had the Conservatives got five/ten/twenty million more votes than the Labour party.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I take it that is a generalisation you make about all manifestos of political parties that fought the last General Election...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why is it that I feel that you would have made a similar statement but with a change of innuendo had the Conservatives got five/ten/twenty million more votes than the Labour party.

Given the current system gives 100% of control to a party with less than 40% of the vote, it's in urgent need of reform.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Given the current system gives 100% of control to a party with less than 40% of the vote, it's in urgent need of reform.

There you have it in a nutshell. You hold to that view stated above whereas I hold to a diametrically opposite view.

Let us go back just over ten years to the General Election of 2005 when the following was the case:-
Labour.............35.2% share of the vote. 355 Members of Parliament
Conservatives...32.4% share of the vote. 198 Members of Parliament.

I cannot recall any Labour Party supporters saying there was "an urgent need of reform" after winning that election by that margin.

 

[backontrack]

There you have it in a nutshell. You hold to that view stated above whereas I hold to a diametrically opposite view.

Let us go back just over ten years to the General Election of 2005 when the following was the case:-
Labour.............35.2% share of the vote. 355 Members of Parliament
Conservatives...32.4% share of the vote. 198 Members of Parliament.

I cannot recall any Labour Party supporters saying there was "an urgent need of reform" after winning that election by that margin.

It was H. L. Mencken who said, "Reform is a necessary thing, but it seems to only ever be for others".

 

[me123]

That 36.9% of the vote you refer to equates to 11,334,576 votes

The Labour Party had 30.4% of the vote. That equates to 9,347,304 votes.

A difference of 1,987,172 votes between those two political parties has far more emphasis when viewed numerically.

Or to put it another way, The party in Government got 11,334,576 votes whilst all other parties/candidates combined got 19,363,259.

8,028,683 more people did not vote for the Conservatives than did. A difference of 8,028,683 votes between these two groups has far more emphasis when viewed numerically.

Raw numbers, however, don't really matter. The difference between 36.9% and 30.4% can represent just a handful of people in a smaller election, and can represent well more than two million people in a larger election. That doesn't matter to me. I am more interested in proportions of votes and how they relate to the composition of parliament.

In order to have a majority government, I argue that it is only fair that the majority of the electorate support your party. This way the parliament is representative of the people it represents. The majority of the electorate do not support the Conservatives, yet the majority of representatives in the parliament represent this party.

It is therefore quite hypocritical of the government to claim that they have a mandate with only the express support of 36.1% of the electorate, yet deny workers the right to strike with potentially even more support amongst the union electorate.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Or to put it another way, The party in Government got 11,334,576 votes whilst all other parties/candidates combined got 19,363,259.

8,028,683 more people did not vote for the Conservatives than did. A difference of 8,028,683 votes between these two groups has far more emphasis when viewed numerically.

Raw numbers, however, don't really matter. The difference between 36.9% and 30.4% can represent just a handful of people in a smaller election, and can represent well more than two million people in a larger election. That doesn't matter to me. I am more interested in proportions of votes and how they relate to the composition of parliament.

In order to have a majority government, I argue that it is only fair that the majority of the electorate support your party. This way the parliament is representative of the people it represents. The majority of the electorate do not support the Conservatives, yet the majority of representatives in the parliament represent this party.

It is therefore quite hypocritical of the government to claim that they have a mandate with only the express support of 36.1% of the electorate, yet deny workers the right to strike with potentially even more support amongst the union electorate.

Having read my posting # 63, concerning the 2005 General Election, which was won by Labour with a 2.8% greater share of the vote but 157 more Members of Parliament, could you address your views stated above and see if you still felt that the Labour Party had the support of the total majority of the entire electorate in that election after the declared final result.

If Labour had stated they had a mandate, would you have been so passionately adamant that fairness had not taken place?

 

[me123]

Having read my posting # 63, concerning the 2005 General Election, which was won by Labour with a 2.8% greater share of the vote but 157 more Members of Parliament, could you address your views stated above and see if you still felt that the Labour Party had the support of the total majority of the entire electorate in that election after the declared final result.

If Labour had stated they had a mandate, would you have been so passionately adamant that fairness had not taken place?

In a word, yes. I'm disappointed that you feel you have to ask. The party involved doesn't matter. I think it's been quite a long time since any party in the UK had an outright majority of the votes at a General Election.

It's not entirely true that they don't have a mandate of sorts. The largest party should, in my opinion, be invited to form a government before a coalition of smaller parties. However, with an outright majority of seats and a minority of votes, the Conservatives (and previously, Labour, and until recently even my own party the SNP in Scotland) can push through their agenda without any real opposition. They may state that they have a mandate, but if their mandate was only supported by a small portion of the electorate, they cannot say that the majority of the electorate do not oppose their plans. The majority of the electorate did not explicitly support their policies.

I'm deviating wildly from the thread here, but this is why proportional representation is a good idea. It gives a better representation of the views of the electorate.

Given that the Conservatives generally oppose electoral reform for the election of representatives to the House of Commons, I feel it quite hypocritical that they are imposing higher standards on the trade unions than they expect for themselves.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think it's been quite a long time since any party in the UK had an outright majority of the votes at a General Election.

1931 when Stanley Baldwin's Conservatives got 55% of the popular vote. A few governments have been close since then such as the Tories in 1955 (49.7%) and 1959 (49.4%) and Labour in 1966 (48%) but 1931 was the last time a government managed to win an election with a majority of the popular vote and it's been a while since anyone managed over 40% (Labour in 2001 with 40.7%).

 

[SS4]

I take it that is a generalisation you make about all manifestos of political parties that fought the last General Election...:roll:

Correct

Why is it that I feel that you would have made a similar statement but with a change of innuendo had the Conservatives got five/ten/twenty million more votes than the Labour party.

I don't know but I'm sorry to have to leap to such assumptions about me. I thought you'd have known better

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't know but I'm sorry to have to leap to such assumptions about me. I thought you'd have known better

Sorry if I came over a tad on the strong side to a fellow football supporter in the slough of despond...you with Aston Villa. I with Hyde United (three successive relegations)...

Never mind, we both appear to think that Paul McGrath should be made a saint...

 

[TheKnightWho]

There you have it in a nutshell. You hold to that view stated above whereas I hold to a diametrically opposite view.

Let us go back just over ten years to the General Election of 2005 when the following was the case:-
Labour.............35.2% share of the vote. 355 Members of Parliament
Conservatives...32.4% share of the vote. 198 Members of Parliament.

I cannot recall any Labour Party supporters saying there was "an urgent need of reform" after winning that election by that margin.

Saying you hold an opposed view without justifying it is as useful as saying "it's my opinion that the sky is green". Great, but it's not sensible to make decisions based upon it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can I ask if on line voting for Sadiq Khan, the Labour Party candidate for Mayor of London in the London mayoral elections was also perfectly acceptable. I only ask as you only make mention of the "Tory" candidate.

It was. When Labour was holding its selection of candidate for London Mayor, members had a choice of voting online or by post. I voted online.

I respect people who are lifelong campaigners for a new voting system (maybe you are one), but there are HUGE numbers of people who bring this up only when their party has lost out and change their tune entirely when it works out for them.

Personally, as someone who has been a supporter of PR for virtually all my adult life, I haven't noticed many people changing their tune according to who wins an election, so I wonder what your evidence for your assertion of huge numbers of people doing so is?

I have noticed a slowly growing awareness of the issue over time (I suspect the referendum in 2011, despite itself being lost, boosted awareness). My (admittedly subjective) impression is that within the Labour Party, it tends to be younger members who are most supportive of electoral reform, which may well account for any recent increase in voices supporting PR. (Still, sadly a minority within Labour I think)

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have noticed a slowly growing awareness of the issue over time (I suspect the referendum in 2011, despite itself being lost, boosted awareness). My (admittedly subjective) impression is that within the Labour Party, it tends to be younger members who are most supportive of electoral reform, which may well account for any recent increase in voices supporting PR. (Still, sadly a minority within Labour I think)

Two major things I've noticed:

a) There's an appalling misunderstanding by many over what these other voting systems entail, with such rubbish as "supporters of small parties get multiple votes" being bandied around. It completely muddies the waters.

b) People who support FPTP often play up its strength and stability (i.e. its anti-democratic elements), which while reasonable, often tend to be the same people who complain about the lack of democracy in the EU etc. I find this kind of thing grossly hypocritical, and it's why I can't take many of the supporters of FPTP seriously.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Saying you hold an opposed view without justifying it is as useful as saying "it's my opinion that the sky is green". Great, but it's not sensible to make decisions based upon it.

All I will say on that matter that the holding of a view is a personal matter and one that needs no justification to anyone in a democracy. RailUK forums do not officially have employed past officers of the Stasi, even though it often seems that some do masquerade as website members from time to time.

There are times upon this website when I am reminded of the oil on canvas painting by William Frederick Yeames RA ..."And when did you last see your father"....that pictures the ten year old son of a Royalist follower summoned before a committee of Parliamentary notables to be examined in a way that would not be allowed these days.

 

[TheKnightWho]

All I will say on that matter that the holding of a view is a personal matter and one that needs no justification to anyone in a democracy. RailUK forums do not officially have employed past officers of the Stasi, even though it often seems that some do masquerade as website members from time to time.

There are times upon this website when I am reminded of the oil on canvas painting by William Frederick Yeames RA ..."And when did you last see your father"....that pictures the ten year old son of a Royalist follower summoned before a committee of Parliamentary notables to be examined in a way that would not be allowed these days.

If you had actually read what I said, instead of immediately launching into pretentious, barely relevant, pseudo-intellectual prattle over what you wished I'd have said, you would have noticed that I said that an opinion without a justification is useless, not that you are not allowed to have one.

No doubt you will now tell me that I didn't understand your point or something, when it's plain to see even through the sea of obfuscation you usually like to present things with.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you had actually read what I said, instead of immediately launching into pretentious, barely relevant, pseudo-intellectual prattle over what you wished I'd have said, you would have noticed that I said that an opinion without a justification is useless, not that you are not allowed to have one.

No doubt you will now tell me that I didn't understand your point or something, when it's plain to see even through the sea of obfuscation you usually like to present things with.

It used to be said that in some areas in the past that were "rock-solid working class" areas that those who cast their vote for the Labour Party did so because their fathers and grandfathers voted Labour and that is far as their opinion went in "terms of justification" to use your phrase but I wonder how many of those would have reacted to your claim that opinions without justification were worthless. Note the lack of obfuscation in that statement.

You can continue to attempt to "cross posting swords" with me, but you will never win any argument, howsoever hard you try.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It used to be said that in some areas in the past that were "rock-solid working class" areas that those who cast their vote for the Labour Party did so because their fathers and grandfathers voted Labour and that is far as their opinion went in "terms of justification" to use your phrase but I wonder how many of those would have reacted to your claim that opinions without justification were worthless. Note the lack of obfuscation in that statement.

You can continue to attempt to "cross posting swords" with me, but you will never win any argument, howsoever hard you try.

Yet again, you equivocate instead of addressing the point. I am not trying to force you to do anything - I am reiterating the point that saying "it's my opinion" doesn't automatically put it on a footing with all others simply because it's an opinion. Claiming that others also have bad reasons for their views doesn't change that, and your constant attempts to accuse others of double-standards feels rather like you're projecting more than anything substantial.

As for the arrogance in your second paragraph, I would have to agree: I don't think it is conceivable you will ever admit fault or that you misunderstood something.

 

[backontrack]

You often say that 'if the Labour party had done x, you wouldn't be saying that', Paul. But what if it is flipped?

It is a well-known phenomenon that many hardcore Conservative families will bring up their children to be hard-core Conservatives without them looking at the information. In these cases, is justification important?

I have a rather nice quote for that, which is from H. L. Mencken: "Reform is a necessary thing, but only ever for others".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yet again, you equivocate instead of addressing the point. I am not trying to force you to do anything - I am reiterating the point that saying "it's my opinion" doesn't automatically put it on a footing with all others simply because it's an opinion. Claiming that others also have bad reasons for their views doesn't change that, and your constant attempts to accuse others of double-standards feels rather like you're projection more than anything substantial.

As for the arrogance in your second paragraph, I would have to agree: I don't think it is conceivable you will ever admit fault or that you misunderstood something.

I categorically state that I have not misunderstood anything that has been stated in postings making askance of me because I am intelligent enough to comprehend any points that are put to me and I will choose to answer those points in a way that I feel fit.

I am not here to pander to anyone's wishes.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I categorically state that I have not misunderstood anything that has been stated in postings making askance of me because I am intelligent enough to comprehend any points that are put to me and I will choose to answer those points in a way that I feel fit.

I am not here to pander to anyone's wishes.

None of this changes what I said about opinions without justifications being useless.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are some who implicitly trust to faith in their beliefs and accept it as having no need of justification and have suffered martyrdom for adherence, such as stated in the Apostles Creed.....

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ, His only son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell,
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
And is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic Church,
The Communion of Saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The Resurrection of the body
And life everlasting.

 

[me123]

There are some who implicitly trust to faith in their beliefs and accept it as having no need of justification and have suffered martyrdom for adherence, such as stated in the Apostles Creed.....

How on earth did a thread about trade unions end up with a full quote of the Apostles' Creed?

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you are to convince others of that belief it generally helps to have some sort of evidence or argument to back yourself up. Stating "I believe because I believe" may make you feel better, but it does nothing to argue your case, and will change the views of very few people.

I find it highly unlikely that you will be martyred on RailUK Forums. As long as you stay out of discussions about DOO.

 

[Barn]

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you are to convince others of that belief it generally helps to have some sort of evidence or argument to back yourself up. Stating "I believe because I believe" may make you feel better, but it does nothing to argue your case, and will change the views of very few people.

Ultimately we are not here to peer review each other's academic papers. Neither are many of us here to canvass and to change the views of others. We're here to discuss our opinions and to hear how other people approach the same issue.

Unless we hire polling companies for a bespoke study or fill our posts with footnotes and references, each of our inputs will be based on our own thoughts and anecdotal experiences. This is easy to sneer at but elections (and probably especially referendums) are won and lost on broad principles, gut feelings and people's own experiences in their own lives.

 

[me123]

The world, and this forum, would be a much more boring place if all of our arguments boiled down to "I believe because I believe". There would be little room for discussion. There'd be no point of discussion.

 

[backontrack]

There are some who implicitly trust to faith in their beliefs and accept it as having no need of justification and have suffered martyrdom for adherence, such as stated in the Apostles Creed.....

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ, His only son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell,
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
And is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic Church,
The Communion of Saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The Resurrection of the body
And life everlasting.

That doesn't stop you from having to justify your beliefs on other things.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There are some who implicitly trust to faith in their beliefs and accept it as having no need of justification and have suffered martyrdom for adherence, such as stated in the Apostles Creed.....

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ, His only son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell,
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
And is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic Church,
The Communion of Saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The Resurrection of the body
And life everlasting.

So First Past the Post is the word of Jesus Christ is it?

As much as I like to see quite how pretentiously overblown you can make yourself in response to being challenged, it's evident that you're unwilling to engage properly with the issue.

 

[SS4]

There are some who implicitly trust to faith in their beliefs and accept it as having no need of justification and have suffered martyrdom for adherence

That sounds like something ISIS would come out with.

It's fine for you to believe in it but when you want to convince others that your position is correct it's no longer good enough.

To use a football analogy it's akin to me saying that Aston Villa are the best team ever despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

spam

Don't care.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are some who implicitly trust to faith in their beliefs and accept it as having no need of justification and have suffered martyrdom for adherence, such as stated in the Apostles Creed.....

I believe in miracles, ooh, you sexy thing you

 

[backontrack]

I believe in miracles, ooh, you sexy thing you

We've come a long way from the Trade Union Bill

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I believe in miracles, ooh, you sexy thing you

It'd be a miracle if this thread got back on topic