Public Sector Strike Day

[drew]

it is different, as his mandate comes from having a majority of parliamentary seats, not votes. its also different as most parliamentary seats do have a majority turn out, and as i've said before i certainly would say they change the law so a minimum turnout is required.

He doesn't have a majority of seats though, he is the leader of the party with the largest number of seats but certainly does not have over half of the MPs. I would agree that there should be a change in law with regard to strike ballot mandates but equally I would, at the same time, like to see voting in general elections made mandatory!

 

[drew]

no, it highlights problem well. they only count returned ballots, so only need 50% of those returned. so NUT turnout of 27% needs only 13.6% of the membership in favor. as it was it was around 90%, because those voting tend to vote for rather than against the unions actions. so its quite easy to softly rig a ballot by discouraging those against from voting either way - i recall this is what one union was found doing a short while ago.

How can you say it is 'easy' to rig a vote when they have to be independently scrutinised? Unite fell foul of that when they sent ballot papers out to members that had died!

 

[Captain Sensible]

It was still a legal strike. More than 50% of those that voted, voted to strike. It is no different to the argument saying Cameron has no mandate to govern because he didn't get more than 50% of the turnout, let alone the electorate (although that applies to every British Governments, at least since WWII). It could be argued that if you chose not to vote, you are content to accept the decision of the majority that do.

Very, very good point.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Very, very good point.

Agree-

Not to decide,is to decide,if you are able to vote,you should do within the boundaries of sensibility-parent working,picking up kids,attending a family emergency-you know the things that could stop you,do all you can to vote..postal, even...?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But they are buying the property FROM someone who is then using the money for something else. The individual no longer has the money but it is still in circulation.

You cannot "stockpile" money unless you take the cash and physically put it somewhere. Otherwise you are spending it, investing it or putting it somewhere where someone else is doing the same for their benefit.

If you convert your cash into any asset... property, art, jewelry, whatever.... You had to buy it from someone so the money remains in circulation.

This is one of the basic principles of Economics which is often ignored, glossed over or misrepresented for political/ideological reasons. But that doesn't mean its not true!

I appreciate what you're saying and agree that unless you literally put your cash in a shoe-box under the bed "something" is happening to it and it remains in circulation. But, since 2007 some money is being parked and not circulated in an agressive manner like it once was.

 

[beorhthelm]

How can you say it is 'easy' to rig a vote when they have to be independently scrutinised?

easily, as i say by discouraging people from not voting, so the votes of the hard core in favor of the motion are magnified. come on, NUT 27% turnout of which 90% are in favour... what do you think has happened here? only those in favour are voting, those against havent voted, so dont count. al above board of course... that why some suggest we need to change to have 50% turnout required to carry the vote.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

I appreciate what you're saying and agree that unless you literally put your cash in a shoe-box under the bed "something" is happening to it and it remains in circulation. But, since 2007 some money is being parked and not circulated in an agressive manner like it once was.

Perhaps it was always parked and was wastefully driven so to speak,from 1997-2007?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

IYou sound like a hate filled, control freak determined to smash those with a mind of their own, are you a union rep?

Out of interest, how many keyboards do you get through in a year? I can almost feel your fingers slamming down on the keyboard as you typed this.

 

[beorhthelm]

But, since 2007 some money is being parked and not circulated in an agressive manner like it once was.

examples? the only "parking" of money since 2007 i can think of is the increase in banks reserves, as mandated by Basel and other regulations. if you are going to raise the increase in "wealth" then you'd be overlooking that most that wealth is calculatd on market rate or assets, often not even here in the UK, and not liquid cash floating in someones bank account.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

examples? the only "parking" of money since 2007 i can think of is the increase in banks reserves, as mandated by Basel and other regulations. if you are going to raise the increase in "wealth" then you'd be overlooking that most that wealth is calculatd on market rate or assets, often not even here in the UK, and not liquid cash floating in someones bank account.

I'm more familiar with my home city. The CO building in Berlin is a prime example I believe. A huge former post office in the centre of Berlin purchased and moth-balled a few years back by a cash rich pharma company. The RAW area of Berlin is owned by Icelandics who bought it around the time of their crash as a safer haven than their own banks.

 

[drew]

Agree-

Not to decide,is to decide,if you are able to vote,you should do within the boundaries of sensibility-parent working,picking up kids,attending a family emergency-you know the things that could stop you,do all you can to vote..postal, even...?

One of the stupid things is why do we have to have elections on a Thursday and, if it helps increase the turnout, have voting over two days or even more.

easily, as i say by discouraging people from not voting, so the votes of the hard core in favor of the motion are magnified. come on, NUT 27% turnout of which 90% are in favour... what do you think has happened here? only those in favour are voting, those against havent voted, so dont count. al above board of course... that why some suggest we need to change to have 50% turnout required to carry the vote.

Other than not agreeing with the result, what evidence do you have that the union discouraged those not in support of the strike not to bother voting.?

 

[Captain Sensible]

easily, as i say by discouraging people from not voting, so the votes of the hard core in favor of the motion are magnified. come on, NUT 27% turnout of which 90% are in favour... what do you think has happened here? only those in favour are voting, those against havent voted, so dont count. al above board of course... that why some suggest we need to change to have 50% turnout required to carry the vote.

Vote rigging within a massive group of the NUT is very very difficult and you seem to be calling lobbying and persuading rigging. Therefore every general and local election in history has been rigged.
The system does not NEED changing. It works. I cannot explain why there is some apathy amongst teachers, yet surely if there was an overwhelming feel that a No vote was favoured by the silent majority, more of them would have voted. In the strikes I was working on, with employees against, a private company with thousands balloted, the returns were 80% and 76% and of those 92% and then 88% voted in favour respectively. Those that decided not to Vote in the NUT are doing themselves no favours at all, whichever side of the fence they sit. They attract comments like yours and that is a bad thing for the NUT and their members future terms and conditions. I've seen it many times when employees are blindly sleepwalking into being replaced in their job, yet refusing to believe the warnings and refusing to vote/strike/ or even attend any of their own union meetings, ment that by the time they realised that their jobs were going, it was too late.

 

[beorhthelm]

One of the stupid things is why do we have to have elections on a Thursday and, if it helps increase the turnout, have voting over two days or even more.



Other than not agreeing with the result, what evidence do you have that the union discouraged those not in support of the strike not to bother voting.?

none whatsoever. but ~73% members not voting is a bit odd wouldnt you say? Maybe they are simply apathetic to the unions claims.