Why have unions fallen out of favour in the UK?

[AnonymousUser1]

I disagree strongly with some recent actions of some unions. However I do think the democratic mandate they are forced by legislation to obtain for strike ballots is far more robust than that of the governments that created that legislation.

primarily this is because issues which are in the grand scheme of things rather trivial and effect a very small number of people can have serious impact on the operation of the country and cause disruption and diminuation of service for millions of taxpayers ...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And whether you like or not, the fact that the Conservatives have absolute power despite nearly 2/3 of those who voted at the last election choosing not to vote for them, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, remotely democratic.

One might counter this by inquiring to the fractional usage that you used above to ask for the percentage who did not vote for the Labour Party, which was the second largest gainer of number of seats at that General Election.,

Was it not democracy that led to the matter of the electorate of the country deciding not to change the current method of FPTP?

 

[edwin_m]

One might counter this by inquiring to the fractional usage that you used above to ask for the percentage who did not vote for the Labour Party, which was the second largest gainer of number of seats at that General Election.,

Was it not democracy that led to the matter of the electorate of the country deciding not to change the current method of FPTP?

Very rarely has either of the major parties secured a majority of the votes. The coalition government was probably the only one in recent history where the majority of voters had a government including the party they had voted for. In my view this system is one of the big reasons we have such a divided country - most constituencies are "safe" for one main party and therefore ignored by both, and with the exception of 2010 the winner gains virtually untrammeled power with a minority of the vote and sometimes with fewer votes than their opponents. This is then treated as a mandate to introduce measures which the majority of voters are probably opposed to.

With a more representative electoral system it might be more difficult to take radical action, because to be re-elected you would have to appeal outside your own party support base. This doesn't seem to have done Germany much harm.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One might counter this by inquiring to the fractional usage that you used above to ask for the percentage who did not vote for the Labour Party, which was the second largest gainer of number of seats at that General Election.,

By the same measure, it was slightly more than 2/3. In fact Labour secured 35.6% of the seats with 30.4% of the votes, which clearly is somewhat too many seats for the number of votes. I'm not sure in what sense you think that counters my point - if anything, the discrepancy actually confirms my point that the system is not really democratic - although clearly at the 2015 election the discrepancy was far greater for the Conservatives than for Labour (The opposite was true in 1997, 2001 and 2005 - which I would argue is just as undemocratic).

Was it not democracy that led to the matter of the electorate of the country deciding not to change the current method of FPTP?

I'm sure you are well aware that a reasonably proportional electoral system was not an option in the referendum to which you are alluding.

 

[Harbornite]

Rather than moaning about the fact that more people voted for other parties but the Tories still remained in power, why not look at the problem? Labour are unattractive to those living in "Tory" seats, there's a reason for that and it comes down to one underlying issue: as long as there are people, there will be disagreements. Not everyone finds Labour appealing and representative of their own views.

 

[CarlSilva]

------ : So when the trades unions decide to take on the elected government -------

You sure about that ? They act on behalf of their members, whose interests they are acting in. If the goverment is the employer, so be it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You sure about that ? They act on behalf of their members, whose interests they are acting in. If the goverment is the employer, so be it.

Which particular "government employed railway" did you have in mind?

 

[northwichcat]

Rather than moaning about the fact that more people voted for other parties but the Tories still remained in power, why not look at the problem? Labour are unattractive to those living in "Tory" seats, there's a reason for that and it comes down to one underlying issue: as long as there are people, there will be disagreements. Not everyone finds Labour appealing and representative of their own views.

1. The Tories didn't remain in power, they returned to power for the first time since 1997 in 2015. They were part of a coalition government between 2010 and 2015 which resulted in them not doing a lot of things they wanted to do. Due to the Conservative's excellent PR they took credit for a lot of the nicer policies which originated from the Lib Dems, made Labour look a lot more responsible than they were for the 2008 crash and made out the economy had improved a lot more than it had under George Osborne's guidance and gullible voters believed them.
2. The argument made by Paul Sidorczuk was we have a democratically elected government, despite it being a system that unfairly benefits the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. It's possible a union or protest group can have more public backing than the government got in at the last election. Look at how many people voted UKIP in 2015 compared to how many people voted Leave in 2016.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Rather than moaning about the fact that more people voted for other parties but the Tories still remained in power, why not look at the problem?

The problem is First Past The Post.

 

[FordFocus]

We had the AV referendum in 2011 and that was booted out. The vote was one of the key reasons of the LibDems jumping into bed with the Conservatives as they believed it would gain them more seats. They lost the vote and I doubt we will see another push to get rid of FPTP for many years.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

We had the AV referendum in 2011 and that was booted out. The vote was one of the key reasons of the LibDems jumping into bed with the Conservatives as they believed it would gain them more seats. They lost the vote and I doubt we will see another push to get rid of FPTP for many years.

or perhaps not as Single transferrable vote can be used in single candidate constituencies and is very much as a case of 'least worst' candidate if the frist past the post levle of votes are not met...

 

[DeeGee]

We had the AV referendum in 2011 and that was booted out. The vote was one of the key reasons of the LibDems jumping into bed with the Conservatives as they believed it would gain them more seats. They lost the vote and I doubt we will see another push to get rid of FPTP for many years.

Some of us voted against AV because it was such a terrible bodge and a poor fit for the UK.

Had AV got through, we'd be pretty much hamstrung into using a flawed system for generations, rather than still being able to discuss decent alternatives to FPTP now.

It's the opposite of the Brexit vote. With the AV referendum we were told what shape the alternative to FPTP would be. With the Brexit vote we were asked if we wanted "Something else" without anyone knowing what that alternative would be. We can therefore justifiably have a future referendum on STV, or mixed member, or whatever, because it's a different question.

Anyway, back on topic. I'm a member of a union. I work in an Academy. It's expected that we are union members. In fact, for teachers, it's very strongly recommended without being compulsory - the legal protection alone makes it almost essential. I'd have thought it would be the same with many similar jobs where you work with large numbers of the public every day.

 

[Barn]

In recent years, as far as I'm aware, the only political activity the trades unions have been involved in to any significant extent has involved campaigning publically (and presumably some private lobbying) against aspects of Government policy in the hope of changing the Governments' mind, and donating money to other political groups. That's no different in principle from what thousands of charities, pressure groups, commercial organizations, and ordinary invididuals do every day, and it's surely a vital part of our democracy that organizations and individuals with concerns can campaign and lobby on those concerns.

Do you regard it as undemocratic for anyone to campaign against the Government, or only when the organization doing so happens to be a trades union?

I think there is a particular issue with unions involved in public service delivery. Fundamentally, industrial rights are private rights given to unions and staff against their employer. That's fine for a private dispute with a private employer, but everything gets a little blurred when that employer is the state.

Whilst I understand striking for wage increases or against the unfair dismissal of a colleague, etc, there is sometimes a sense that unions wish to affect public policy (e.g. academies, NHS operating hours, etc) through industrial action. Many leftist unions favour state control of industries, but fail to appreciate that this means that the state has a right to take policy decisions in the interests of public policy generally. Striking when genuinely linked to the employment relationship per se is one thing. Striking over the broad direction of policy is another. This is the price of being a public servant.

Of course, many disputes - such as the junior doctors dispute - involve a bit of both. This makes the issue very complicated.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think there is a particular issue with unions involved in public service delivery. Fundamentally, industrial rights are private rights given to unions and staff against their employer. That's fine for a private dispute with a private employer, but everything gets a little blurred when that employer is the state.

Whilst I understand striking for wage increases or against the unfair dismissal of a colleague, etc, there is sometimes a sense that unions wish to affect public policy (e.g. academies, NHS operating hours, etc) through industrial action. Many leftist unions favour state control of industries, but fail to appreciate that this means that the state has a right to take policy decisions in the interests of public policy generally. Striking when genuinely linked to the employment relationship per se is one thing. Striking over the broad direction of policy is another. This is the price of being a public servant.

Of course, many disputes - such as the junior doctors dispute - involve a bit of both. This makes the issue very complicated.

I accept it does get complicated when policy directly affects employees, so it becomes impossible to separate a union's (claimed) defence of their employment conditions/etc. from public policy.

However - even if a strike does have public policy implications, is that any different in principle from, for example, a company deciding that it will only invest in a new factory/office in a certain location if the Government takes some action (such as improving transport links to the area). Or for that matter, a number of organizations who are currently saying (roughly) that they may move UK-based offices to Europe if we don't retain membership of the single market. Those kinds of cases are presumably quite legitimate from the point of view that the organizations concerned feel they cannot profitably operate here without the Government taking certain actions and they are therefore doing what they need to do to protect their businesses. But those statements also imply attempts to influence policy, with implied threats if the Government doesn't do what the organizations wish. In that regard, they appear no different to a union organizing a strike where the matter has some bearing on Government policy. How can one be OK but the other not be?

 

[Barn]

I accept it does get complicated when policy directly affects employees, so it becomes impossible to separate a union's (claimed) defence of their employment conditions/etc. from public policy.

However - even if a strike does have public policy implications, is that any different in principle from, for example, a company deciding that it will only invest in a new factory/office in a certain location if the Government takes some action (such as improving transport links to the area). Or for that matter, a number of organizations who are currently saying (roughly) that they may move UK-based offices to Europe if we don't retain membership of the single market. Those kinds of cases are presumably quite legitimate from the point of view that the organizations concerned feel they cannot profitably operate here without the Government taking certain actions and they are therefore doing what they need to do to protect their businesses. But those statements also imply attempts to influence policy, with implied threats if the Government doesn't do what the organizations wish. In that regard, they appear no different to a union organizing a strike where the matter has some bearing on Government policy. How can one be OK but the other not be?

It's a characteristically good point. Personally I have little sympathy for the companies in your example either. Government should collect evidence from many sources, including businesses and potential future investors, but should then make decisions based on the wider public interest.

In terms of public opinion generally, I think the only thing I can say is that in your example one is an opportunity cost and the other typically involves some pain to people who rely on an existing service. One is a carrot (which may be withdrawn) and the other is a stick (which may be wielded).

Typically those reliant on public services tend to be the most vulnerable (aged, infirm, poor, ill, etc). Unions obviously can't help this (it is just inherent in the industry they operate in) but it is probably incumbent on them to be fully cognisant of this. I accept that this is an unfairness between employees in the public and the private sectors. As I say, I think this is just a feature of being a public servant.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The problem is First Past The Post.

You may see a problem, but I most certainly do not.

 

[Harbornite]

The problem is First Past The Post.

The problem is that the majority of people in this country aren't into socialism and I don't blame them. There's nothing wrong with having a state owner healthcare system and a handful of other state owned enterprises but that's about it.

 

[AlterEgo]

You may see a problem, but I most certainly do not.

As a retired Conservative voter should we be surprised?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As a retired Conservative voter should we be surprised?

Yes, as I can recall a good number of Labour Party victories in the General Election since I was able to officially cast my vote from the early 1960s onwards that were made possible by FPTP.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, as I can recall a good number of Labour Party victories in the General Election since I was able to officially cast my vote from the early 1960s onwards that were made possible by FPTP.

Like I said before FPTP benefits the Conservatives and Labour. Neither party has got 50% of all votes in a General Election for a very long time so if PR was introduced coalitions and pacts would happen all the time.

Number of seats for each party under FPTP based on 2015 General Election result:
Conservatives - 330
Labour - 232
SNP - 56
Lib Dem - 8
DUP - 8
Sinn Féin - 4
Plaid Cymru - 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party - 3
Ulster Unionist Party - 2
Green - 1
UKIP - 1
Independent (Sylvia Hermon) - 1
Speaker (John Bercow) - 1

Number of seats for each party under PR based on 2015 General Election result:
Conservatives - 239
Labour - 198
UKIP - 83
Lib Dem - 51
SNP - 31
Green - 25
DUP - 4
Sinn Féin - 4
Plaid Cymru - 4
Ulster Unionist Party - 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party - 2
Independent (Sylvia Hermon) - 1
Alliance - 1
TUSC - 1
Speaker (John Bercow) - 1
National Health Action - 1
TUV - 1

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, as I can recall a good number of Labour Party victories in the General Election since I was able to officially cast my vote from the early 1960s onwards that were made possible by FPTP.

And, once again, you assume that everyone who doesn't like the Conservative Party must be a Labour Party supporter.

It is that dichotomy that's the biggest problem with FPTP.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, as I can recall a good number of Labour Party victories in the General Election since I was able to officially cast my vote from the early 1960s onwards that were made possible by FPTP.

But it is not an inherently fair system, would you not agree?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it is not an inherently fair system, would you not agree?

It's fair if you use it as intended - to elect a local representative who then goes forward to form part of a Government.

The problem is (a) that people don't use it as intended, and (b) that the intention should probably shift anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

It's fair if you use it as intended - to elect a local representative who then goes forward to form part of a Government.

The problem is (a) that people don't use it as intended, and (b) that the intention should probably shift anyway.

Parties don't use it as intended either. If there were no parties the people of Cheshire wouldn't elect the son of a businessman from London with a History degree who hadn't visited the area prior to wanting to stand for election. However, he (George Osborne) got elected with a Conservative party logo under his name on the ballot paper. Some members of the local Conservative party felt the national Conservatives had forced Osborne on them so that he was parachuted in to a safe seat, as they had wanted Knutsford born Edward Timpson who later became MP for Crewe & Nantwich.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But it is not an inherently fair system, would you not agree?

As I have said before, I have voted since the early 1960s and I see no unfairness whatsoever, despite a Government being formed by a political party that I did not support on quite a number of occasions. That is what is called democracy.. The electorate are free to vote for whosoever they wish.

 

[AlterEgo]

As I have said before, I have voted since the early 1960s and I see no unfairness whatsoever, despite a Government being formed by a political party that I did not support on quite a number of occasions. That is what is called democracy.. The electorate are free to vote for whosoever they wish.

The electorate are free to vote for a single person, but never the government. This is the flaw in the system.

 

[TheKnightWho]

As I have said before, I have voted since the early 1960s and I see no unfairness whatsoever, despite a Government being formed by a political party that I did not support on quite a number of occasions. That is what is called democracy.. The electorate are free to vote for whosoever they wish.

Just stating that you see no unfairness and then providing no argument in its favour is absolutely useless if you want to convince anyone on this thread that you are correct. And before you're out to say that you're not here to convince anyone, I'd retort that if you aren't then you wouldn't have posted on the thread in the first place.

Not all democracies are equal. Saying it isn't unfair because it gives your favourite party a vast advantage isn't going to make us change our minds.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's fair if you use it as intended - to elect a local representative who then goes forward to form part of a Government.

I would argue that FPTP isn't even fair as a means to elect a local representative - as amply shown (a) by the phenomenon of splitting the vote - if two candidates/parties have similar views, and (b) the numbers of people who feel unable to vote for the person/party they wish to vote for because that party is not one of the likely winners in their constituency, so that vote couldn't plausibly influence the outcome.

If we'd adopted AV then that would have fixed the unfairness at a constituency level: It would have enabled everyone to vote for whoever they most wanted to vote for without fear of wasted votes, and given a near-guarantee that the party elected in each constituency would reflect the aggregate wishes of the people of that constituency reasonably well. But it would not have fixed the unfairness at national level (and might even have made the national unfairness worse).

 

[edwin_m]

Number of seats for each party under FPTP based on 2015 General Election result:

The actual numbers would probably have been totally different, because as soon as you get away from a two-party system the very existence of FPTP alters people's voting intentions - "tactical voting" against the party you like least rather than in favour of the one you'd really want to win.

 

[fowler9]

First Past the Post is a democratic system to an extent, it certainly doesn't mean in all cases that most people who voted got what they wanted. As in the winning party could have had less people voting for it over all.