Jump to content

Double standards but funny..


Recommended Posts

I saw this and thought I would put it on here and get your view..

 

Here is a selection of quotes from leading Conservatives when the Public and Commercial Services Union announced a strike of border guards in July 2012.

 

 

Damian Green MP: “With only around one in 10 voting for industrial action, they have no authority to call their members out on strike.”

 

Dominic Raab MP: “It can’t be right that union bosses can humiliate the nation when just 11 per cent of their members support strike action.”

 

Priti Patel MP: “Any ballot in which fewer than half of those eligible to vote do so should be ruled invalid.”

 

Conor Burns MP: “The idea that these cloth cap colonels can hold the public to ransom on a turnout of 11 per cent is grotesque and anti-democratic.”

 

Matthew Hancock MP: “Union bosses who should not be allowed to call a strike when only a minority of their members voted for a strike.”

 

 

They changed their tune in 15 weeks!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im surprised that Serwotka didn't get 101% of the vote..... I thought that is how revoultionary communists worked things out?

 

If you think he's a revolutionary communist you need to take some pills.

 

The OP is entirely correct and it is inevitably a different story when MP's of any party scrape in on tiny turnouts as they often have.

 

Apathy is a British disease which affects all areas of life, except the X Factor of course when the whingeing masses suddenly come to life to cast expensive votes for 5 minute wonders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're completely missing the point.

 

when around 11% of a group of people that represent less than 0.1% of the population can effect us all and then project the UK in bad light to literally billions of people across the world. I'm inclined to agree with the MP's.

 

The areas that had these elections are the areas that asked for them, so its only the voters fault and no one else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're completely missing the point.

 

when around 11% of a group of people that represent less than 0.1% of the population can effect us all and then project the UK in bad light to literally billions of people across the world. I'm inclined to agree with the MP's.

 

The areas that had these elections are the areas that asked for them, so its only the voters fault and no one else's.

 

I understand the point perfectly. The only type of worker that can't withdraw their labour are slaves.

 

A group of workers have the right to withdraw their labour if they feel the deal is rubbish. Yes the majority often don't vote. That's because they can't be bothered to follow the details but put their faith in their elected union reps instead. If this wasn't the case then these strikes would have a turnout as low as the votes but they don't. That's why we're discussing them.

 

I usually defend MP's against the dimwits who claim they're all corrupt/the same. However it doesn't take much scrutiny to see how many got in on tiny majorities on tiny votes. I'd also say nobody ever reads manifesto's bar geeks but still vote if they do at all. It's the same situation with union members.

 

Boris has raged against strikers. Did he win 51% of the electorate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're completely missing the point.

 

when around 11% of a group of people that represent less than 0.1% of the population can effect us all and then project the UK in bad light to literally billions of people across the world. I'm inclined to agree with the MP's.

 

The areas that had these elections are the areas that asked for them, so its only the voters fault and no one else's.

 

I think the point the OP is making is that some politicians make political capital out of statistics and that can expose hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the point perfectly. The only type of worker that can't withdraw their labour are slaves.

 

A group of workers have the right to withdraw their labour if they feel the deal is rubbish. Yes the majority often don't vote. That's because they can't be bothered to follow the details but put their faith in their elected union reps instead. If this wasn't the case then these strikes would have a turnout as low as the votes but they don't. That's why we're discussing them.

 

I usually defend MP's against the dimwits who claim they're all corrupt/the same. However it doesn't take much scrutiny to see how many got in on tiny majorities on tiny votes. I'd also say nobody ever reads manifesto's bar geeks but still vote if they do at all. It's the same situation with union members.

 

No working person in the UK is forced to work. You can resign if you don't like the terms and get another job. That does mean workers should not have rights, but that's a far cry from slavery!

 

Boris has raged against strikers. Did he win 51% of the electorate?

 

The last election where one party received more than 51% of the vote was back in 27 October 1931! Are you saying that no election since then has been legitimate?

 

When we have true questions that effect the entire population, we have referendums, and there has to be a 51% vote either way for it to be enacted. No one tiny group should be allowed to hold a nation to ransom!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No working person in the UK is forced to work. You can resign if you don't like the terms and get another job. That does mean workers should not have rights, but that's a far cry from slavery!

 

 

 

The last election where one party received more than 51% of the vote was back in 27 October 1931! Are you saying that no election since then has been legitimate?

 

When we have true questions that effect the entire population, we have referendums, and there has to be a 51% vote either way for it to be enacted. No one tiny group should be allowed to hold a nation to ransom!

 

I think you probably know that the OP is referring generally to politicians (Conservative in this case) commenting on the relationship of turnout to mandate and changing their interpretation of it to suit their political ends. I doubt it was intended as a debate on whether or not a trade union can hold the country to ransom and whilst that point was contained in one of the quotes used by the OP it was there to highlight the hypocrisy of political spin and should probably be taken as such.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you probably know that the OP is referring generally to politicians (Conservative in this case) commenting on the relationship of turnout to mandate and changing their interpretation of it to suit their political ends. I doubt it was intended as a debate on whether or not a trade union can hold the country to ransom and whilst that point was contained in one of the quotes used by the OP it was there to highlight the hypocrisy of political spin and should probably be taken as such.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong OP.

 

its apples for oranges.

 

the OP is saying that because some of the the new police commissioners were elected with a low turn out, that this contradicts unions requirement for a 51% yes vote for industrial action.

 

its not as simple as saying one should mean the other as there are a number of differences between the who situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.