I've been thinking the Conservatives are no longer proper conservatives for a bit. Probably more out of necessity more than anything else like.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
I've been thinking the Conservatives are no longer proper conservatives for a bit. Probably more out of necessity more than anything else like.
PJV3
Member
Well they have been in a coalition, it's not easy to judge them, get the EU stuff out of the way and things should get a lot clearer.
But if the union legislation isn't classic hard core tory stuff then I don't know what to say.
I dunno the recent tax changes were nothing to do with the Lib Dems and they were rough for those with a bit.
The union legislation isn't really that harsh. More common sense imo.
I'm down for change that state 50% of union members have to vote and 40% vote 'yes' in order for strike action to be valid, as long as we apply similar criteria to MPs.
PJV3
Member
I'm with David Davis, it's stuff that general Franco would be proud of. You have followed the law, now report yourself to the police.
Never understood that logic to be honest. Union ballots are a simple yes or no question. If Voter apathy is that they can't even be arsed to answer that in any numbers then I can't see how a union should have the power to call a strike.
UK voter turnout was over 60% by the way, so whilst not great it fits your criteria.
Yes exactly that. Exactly.
Sure. That makes sense. Now apply the same sort of criteria to MPs who get a good five years to claim to represent the people of their constituencies in all kinds of matters.
If we need to put in place qualifiers on ballots for strike action, because strike action in essential services should have a broad basis of support, then surely the same logic should apply to MPs, who can do a hell of a lot more damage to the country then a few days of tube drivers strikes. 191 MPs got into Parliament with less than 30% of their constituents support. I don't really see much basis for them to claim that they represent the people.
PJV3
Member
I didn't follow the tory conference too closely, did they scrap all that stuff?
As for the vote requirements, people don't vote for different reasons. Presuming the result will be a yes once a ballot is called is very common.
Cameron should have accepted the compromise of electronic voting, everyone gets what they want.
Or presuming the vote will be a no... They only way not to presume anything is to vote. If people aren't incensed enough to vote to take action it's safe to presume that they aren't incensed enough to strike.
The reason they don't want electronic voting is so at least some effort being required to hold a formal ballot (Clues in the name.) to avoid us going back to striking over the quality of the work bog paper at the tap of an app.
So you don't think Employers and Unions having a chance to resolve differences before mass communication with the members is a good thing?
Unions are not there to hold businesses to ransom over every little thing, we've been there and the country was a complete pathetic basket case.
There needs to be time allowed for reasonable negotiations without external manipulation.
Unions are not there to hold businesses to ransom over every little thing, we've been there and the country was a complete pathetic basket case.
There needs to be time allowed for reasonable negotiations without external manipulation.
Sorry but the union legislation is insanely vindictive and purely being done to cripple the opposition party.
This country hasn't had a problem with unions for years. We have the lowest number of strikes on record right now. Pushing *this* through as a priority is simple wrong - the idea that we are somehow on the verge of returning to the 70s is laughably silly. Unions haven't been holding things to account for a long time - indeed there's a strong argument we need stronger unions embedded in industry like in Germany.
Nicktendo86
Member
The hole Tom Watson is in is getting deeper...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...buse-case.html?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_pq_tw_20150423
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...buse-case.html?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_pq_tw_20150423
Sorry but until a more sane newspaper starts reporting on it there's nothing here. There's actually nothing *in* the article you linked. It's just a number of quotes about how wrong it is to interfere in an ongoing investigation (which no named source says he did), and a couple of anonymous quotes from the police which (surprise and shock) attack the politicians and defend themself.
I'm hardly Tom Watsons greatest fan, but right now this is just a puff piece to attack him - there's nothing actually *here*.
EDIT: note how they blur two separate stories in order to make it worse. The complaint that TomWatson made to Alison Saunders was about a woman complaint of rape. This then runs into the Leon Brittan story as if it were the same case, but actually the Leon Britton story was about a male rape. There's nothing wrong with an MP complaining about the police ignoring a rape claim when the entire point of the investigation was that the police had deliberately ignored rape claims!
It's a shity article which has nothing in it and is falsely conflating separate cases and unnamed hostile police stories, and then framing it all with important people saying that interfering in police investigations is wrong. It's very well done, but it's a classic example of the shitty form of 'journalism' the telegraph now sinks to.
QuicheFontaine
Member
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
What you are saying is logical. However there is no need to actually change the current union legislation. Strike numbers are low, the economy is not being wrecked by unions. It is blatant what is being done.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's also not logical. Unions are supposed to represent their members; the backroom deals are what everyone disliked about unions to begin with. Recourse to social media to find out member opinion should be the first step, not something you can only do two weeks after negotiations have begun. That's the Conservatives deliberately trying to separate union leadership from their membership.
I can't help it, I'm English! ;-)
> The Spectator
okay.
[edit] Even without a more detailed analysis of the figures, point 6 is obviously bunk because Cameron was in power when the country was (slowly, and despite the Tories' best efforts) making its way out of a recession, so job growth is expected to be higher. No mention of the fact that it took about five years longer than it should have for GDP to reach pre-crash levels.
[edit2] And the claim about falling inequality is disputed: https://fullfact.org/live/2014/jun/inequality_gini_coefficient_lowest_level_rising-33044
UK had one of the strongest growth out of all major economies, I'd love to know how another party could miraculously have expected to improve on that, the best that could have been hoped is that they matched it using their own policies.
And that "growth" has meant shit when it hasn't benefited the majority.
The Eurozone had its own issues at the time which makes the comparison fairly meaningless, and the US had weaker growth but it started earlier because they weren't engaged in deranged and unnecessary austerity policies.
Realistically, the growth would have started sooner and would have been arguably stronger if the government hadn't done what they did. The poor economic record of this government is pretty much inarguable.
Speaking of Europe, the guy who's likely to be announced as the leader of the 'Stay in the EU' campaign, Lord Stuart Rose, had this to say a few years back.
I suppose the ability to push wages down and exploit immigrant workers is one advantage of the EU.
I suppose the ability to push wages down and exploit immigrant workers is one advantage of the EU.
N7Commander95
Member
Well yeah, the reason I thought there is no chance that the stay in the EU will lose is because absolutely no big business will want to leave.
QuicheFontaine
Member
No big business wanted Scotland to leave the UK, but it nearly happened.
But there were tangible benefits to that.
The EU referendum isn't going to be won or lost by the campaigns convincing people to vote one way or the other, it'll be won by getting people to vote at all. By and large most of the country don't give a damn about votes relating to the EU. Its the reason that the last EU elections turn out percentage was in the mid 30s.
Realistically how can you expect any country to grow vastly quicker than every other, then say that the economic record is poor as it was only the quickest out of all of them?
Individual earnings always lag behind growth by a couple of years since economics began. There's an abundance of low to unskilled labour in the market due to quick population growth which isn't helping the lower end at all.
Because;
And?
Not sure what the quality graph was supposed to prove?
Is it some way to solve a massive worldwide liquidity trap no one thought of?
He's saying we suffered 3 unnecessary years of low growth due mainly to Georgey porgies plan A, before growth spiked in 2014 following the move to plan B in 2013. We're no further forward than Germany and just a bit beyond France but we've had a far more torturous route there .
Of course most of our 'recovery' is fuelled by household debt (highest in the OECD's top 7 by a fair bit) and the south east property bubble but that's a different argument all together.
QuicheFontaine
Member
People don't give a toss about Euro elections, but then that's true of almost all EU countries (lol slovakia on 13% turnout!). I expect the turnout for the referendum to be quite high though.
No, the point is that 'quickest growth' is meaningless out of context.
Have you ever heard of the tortoise and the hare? The hare was quicker, so he won the race, right?
I dont understand the reasoning for leaving the EU, is it xenophobia or are there genuine reasons wed be better on our own?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It is mainly centred around sovereignty and immigration.
PJV3
Member
Yeah, it's a compromise depending which way your politics are, but sovereignty and more control over domestic policy is the easiest way to say it.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Wait. Aren't we the tortoise according to these graphs? So, we'll win the race ultimately?
Tbh Id trust Chancellor Merkel to help DC see sense on stuff. Also seems to me that the benefits of being part of the EU far outweigh the downsides.
No.
First half of the twentieth century there was a clear link between growth in output and growth in real wages. Come the Thatcher/Reagan era that link is broken and you see the huge, huge increase in wealth disparity we're burdened with today. Technology is no longer benefiting everyone proportionally.
PJV3
Member
I've always been moderately pro EU until recently , I'm a lefty so the compromise was some basic social guarantees and I put up with free market economics and limits on state intervention etc.
I haven't been impressed with the EU lately, perhaps that's moredown to the rightwards movement across Europe at a national level, but if Cameron wangles changes to the social chapter and workers rights then I'm voting to leave.
Seeing what Merkel and the EU did to Greece made me feel like we should get as far away as possible from them. The more I think about it, the more I think that Tony Benn was right on the EU.
In normal circumstances yes, after a recession no. Wage and employment growth lags behind growth in a recession. Simple supply and demand comes into play with the high level of immigration now as well.
That has nothing to do with Osborne's recession. The breakdown in that relationship has been happening for 40+ years.
The UK is the later-but-slightly-faster rising curve. The hair.
QuicheFontaine
Member
But the hare was never behind the tortoise in the fable. The hare basically just stopped near the finish line allowing the tortoise to catch up.
This analogy is balls.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked