Corbyn

[tut]

Changed my view that he will be a disaster for the Labour Party, I think he could well be its saviour. I think the Public will start to appreciate that he may be a new type of leader, more interested in principals than appearance, will probably speak his mind and not be concerned whether it will cost him votes. The rest of them are doing the damage with their in fighting, probably not be long before they start clamouring for a new leader, and they will then self destruct.

This works fine for me as I do not think there is any chance of Labour taking power in 2020, I disagree with most of his policies, but what is covering the front pages of the usual toilet paper rags, that he did not sing the National Anthem? Neither do I but I may if it was changed to Jerusalem, Land of Hope and Glory, or I Vow to thee my Country, all of which I can belt out at the top of my voice, and are not dirges. He is not a Royalist he is a Republican, so is entitled to his beliefs which have nothing to do with his position as Leader, but he was standing and has full respect for our Armed Forces both past and present, so I have no problem with that as opposed to the mouthings of those that have never even served.

So we are back to trial by journalism which is nothing new and I expect that he will wear a tie at PM's Question Time, albeit with the top shirt button undone and the knot an inch down. I actually feel sympathy for those of you that are genuine Socialists and have to watch your Party being torn apart.

tut

ps:- I wonder how many Scots have heard of this verse which was in an earlier version of the Anthem and then removed?

"Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King."

[BigD]

I was quite impressed by his fairly passionate acceptance speech and like the fact that he is not the 'usual' type of leader. A lot of what he said made sense to me although I guess that's just a tiny snippet of his policies which I haven't really looked at tbh.

Agree the not singing the anthem is just the press trying to discredit him. He made some jibes to the press in his acceptance speech too which I also agreed with.

Mixing things up is a good thing.

[Corranga]

I'm fairly certain that the Rebellious Scots to crush verse was not in the original, and indeed never officially in the song, certainly not when it was used as a national anthem. A quick read of the Flower Of Scotland lyrics doesn't exactly put us in the best light on this subject either.

Of course you're absolutely right though, who cares if he sung it or not, and even who cares why. Respect is not shown by signing a song!

[captain]

I've never voted Labour and never will but he's obviously a man of his convictions and I think it's a positive thing to have two major parties almost completely opposite on policy rather than flirting with the central ground for fear of upsetting undecideds.

This way, voters need to pick the party which best represents their views in the majority of issues important to the voter. Not perfect but better than picking the best of a bad lot or, worse still, not getting off their arses and abstaining completely.

[robin]

I disagree on the abstention thing - if politicians fail to make convincing arguments about why "their way" is better than some other approach, abstention is the logical response. Similarly if no party represents your views, why should you vote for any of them?

What might be interesting is to count abstentions and if they have an overall majority then there is no government for 6 months ...

[pete]

I disagree on the abstention thing - if politicians fail to make convincing arguments about why "their way" is better than some other approach, abstention is the logical response. Similarly if no party represents your views, why should you vote for any of them?

What might be interesting is to count abstentions and if they have an overall majority then there is no government for 6 months ...

Impose the same restrictions that unions will soon be operating under?

[robin]

That did occur to me; the new ballot rules require a 50% turnout and 40% of those elligible to vote must vote in favour of strike. That means an 80% majority, assuming "only" 50% turn out to vote.

No UK general election since the second world war would have returned a government were this approach to be used.

Of course you could argue it's a single issue so easier for people to make their minds up and the general public don't get a vote (you would have to assume they would vote against most strikes), so maybe it's fair to have different thresholds.

At the recent election, the turnout was 66.1% and the Conservatives got 36.9% of that - so that's 24% of the eligible voters choosing to vote in favour of the ultimate winner - that is a very long way short of the 40% imposed on the unions - but at least it is (just) greater than the 33.9% that abstained (which is more than can be said for Mr Blair in 2005).

Anyway, there is no perfect electoral scheme - perhaps because it is always a compromise between straight democracy (all votes count the same) vs constituency representation (each constituency counts the same in parliament, but some have very much smaller population than others).

In any case there doesn't seem to be any appetite for electoral change, so we're stuck with what we have, and perhaps it's not that bad - the outcome would probably be broadly similar whichever model you choose (unless you adopt the radical "no vote = no government" approach).

Cheers,
Robin

[woody]

That did occur to me; the new ballot rules require a 50% turnout and 40% of those elligible to vote must vote in favour of strike. That means an 80% majority, assuming "only" 50% turn out to vote.

No UK general election since the second world war would have returned a government were this approach to be used.

What's the relevance of that? It's comparing apples & fish.

Having now been furnished with experience of how a union functions through a workplace, I can only agree with the changes to the % requirements. I can't fathom why in a yes/no vote situation that will deprive members of pay & genuinely seeks to benefit the workforce why the % requirements are a bad thing?

[pete]

That did occur to me; the new ballot rules require a 50% turnout and 40% of those elligible to vote must vote in favour of strike. That means an 80% majority, assuming "only" 50% turn out to vote.

No UK general election since the second world war would have returned a government were this approach to be used.

What's the relevance of that? It's comparing apples & fish.

Having now been furnished with experience of how a union functions through a workplace, I can only agree with the changes to the % requirements. I can't fathom why in a yes/no vote situation that will deprive members of pay & genuinely seeks to benefit the workforce why the % requirements are a bad thing?

They are both ballots, that's not entirely apples and fish.

Describing union ballots as a "Yes/no situation" suggests that workplace politics are always black and white issues which you must know they aren't. They're tarnished by all the same conflicts and prejudices that confuse any ballot.

I'm not teally making a serious case for these rules to also apply to GEs buy I do think this is just union bashing.

[woody]

That did occur to me; the new ballot rules require a 50% turnout and 40% of those elligible to vote must vote in favour of strike. That means an 80% majority, assuming "only" 50% turn out to vote.

No UK general election since the second world war would have returned a government were this approach to be used.

What's the relevance of that? It's comparing apples & fish.

Having now been furnished with experience of how a union functions through a workplace, I can only agree with the changes to the % requirements. I can't fathom why in a yes/no vote situation that will deprive members of pay & genuinely seeks to benefit the workforce why the % requirements are a bad thing?

They are both ballots, that's not entirely apples and fish.

Describing union ballots as a "Yes/no situation" suggests that workplace politics are always black and white issues which you must know they aren't. They're tarnished by all the same conflicts and prejudices that confuse any ballot.

I'm not teally making a serious case for these rules to also apply to GEs buy I do think this is just union bashing.

Apples and fish are both sources of nutritional goodness.


If a General Election was a question of do you want a Whig Government Yes/No, than I can see the point. Otherwise it's a non-point that serves to undermine a genuine concern. Other aspects of the bill however I can readily accept as union bashing.