Why have unions fallen out of favour in the UK?

[dcsprior]

I support a more proportional wait of electing MPs. Of the various voting systems currently in use in these islands, the Additional Member System as used in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and London Assemblies is the least imperfect in my opinion - perhaps it could be made better if voters could also choose the order that top-up seats were given out between the different candidates from their chosen party.

However, we should acknowledge that whilst a proportional system gets rid of one kind of unfairness, it can introduce another: a system which doesn't tend to result in a majority for one party increases the chances of a party who came 3rd (or 4th, etc) being part of a coalition government and therefore getting more of its policies implemented than the party who came 2nd (or 1st if they're not part of the government).

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

 

[DynamicSpirit]

However, we should acknowledge that whilst a proportional system gets rid of one kind of unfairness, it can introduce another: a system which doesn't tend to result in a majority for one party increases the chances of a party who came 3rd (or 4th, etc) being part of a coalition government and therefore getting more of its policies implemented than the party who came 2nd (or 1st if they're not part of the government).

I'm not so sure if that's really unfair. Remember, there's no reason in principle why the party that comes 1st can't form a coalition with the party that came 2nd. And across Europe, that's not too uncommon. If the coalition excludes the party that came 2nd, but includes the party that came 3rd or 4th, the likely reason is that that party has a closer outlook to and therefore a greater ability to work with the party that came 1st. Hence that coalition is likely to be between parties with a reasonable amount in common, who between them are supported by more than half the electorate, and therefore in aggregate, policies are likely to be centred around what people, very broadly, voted for. (Obviously, there are exceptions. I suspect Israel may be one such). While you may be able to point to individual policies being pursued by minor parties, in most cases that's going to be far less important than the overall direction of the Government. (After all, most voters vote based on overall impressions. Usually, not many people vote for a party because of one single policy that they like).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

This is not an evangelical thread to ensure those of an opposite opinion to that which I hold change their minds similar to what occurred to St Paul on the road to Damascus nor is it up to me to provide any proof to back up my stance on the matter, as the electorate in the last referendum to make comment on the current electoral system did that. In response to your comment about any attempt to convince anyone of what you say above, my answer to that is that this is an internet thread where views in general can be expressed without any need for interrogation in the allegorical sense that was so well portrayed by the oil painting of the ten your old son of a known Royalist being interrogated by a committee of Parliamentarians..."And when did you last see your father"

Perhaps you may have missed the part of one of my recent postings where I stated that FPTP returned a number of Labour Party Governments into power since I commenced voting which most certainly were NOT "my favourite party" (to use your phrase), so that part of your riposte to me is somewhat fallacious.

There are times when I can well imagine some contributors to this thread, given a time warp back hundreds of years but still retaining modern technology, would be those who would be the most vociferous in finding fault with the Magna Carta after a certain happening at Runnymede also also that Wat Tylor would have made many postings on a thread in those days.

 

[northwichcat]

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.

Yes I agree it would look different depending how exactly PR got implemented but that was really to highlight how it would affect the Conservatives and Labour negatively and why neither party are likely to be in favour of implementing it.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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

which form of PR ? and how does this sit with the potential changes in behaviours if STV is used ?

giving the numbers of seats allocated to UKIP in the above fantasy i'm guessing some sort of share of national vote measure . there is NO factual basis for the figures given as a resulr of PR in the above ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes I agree it would look different depending how exactly PR got implemented but that was really to highlight how it would affect the Conservatives and Labour negatively and why neither party are likely to be in favour of implementing it.

The impact on Labours and the Conservatives is most noticeable if the fantasy of share of national vote is used rather than the weird multi member large constituencies used in the Euros or STV being used on current ( or the 'new' 600 MPs/ constituencies being proposed )

Labours opposition to changes in boundaries and voting methods is because they would remove the latter day rotten boroughs which prop up Labours; seat count

 

[TheKnightWho]

This is not an evangelical thread to ensure those of an opposite opinion to that which I hold change their minds similar to what occurred to St Paul on the road to Damascus nor is it up to me to provide any proof to back up my stance on the matter, as the electorate in the last referendum to make comment on the current electoral system did that. In response to your comment about any attempt to convince anyone of what you say above, my answer to that is that this is an internet thread where views in general can be expressed without any need for interrogation in the allegorical sense that was so well portrayed by the oil painting of the ten your old son of a known Royalist being interrogated by a committee of Parliamentarians..."And when did you last see your father"

Perhaps you may have missed the part of one of my recent postings where I stated that FPTP returned a number of Labour Party Governments into power since I commenced voting which most certainly were NOT "my favourite party" (to use your phrase), so that part of your riposte to me is somewhat fallacious.

There are times when I can well imagine some contributors to this thread, given a time warp back hundreds of years but still retaining modern technology, would be those who would be the most vociferous in finding fault with the Magna Carta after a certain happening at Runnymede also also that Wat Tylor would have made many postings on a thread in those days.

You really do have a knack for hiding behind the most prolific waffle instead of getting to the point. You did exactly what I said you'd do, and still didn't actually address the issue. The fact that you're still going on about how FPTP returned Labour governments shows you clearly didn't even read the posts saying that that was not the point.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You really do have a knack for hiding behind the most prolific waffle instead of getting to the point. You did exactly what I said you'd do, and still didn't actually address the issue. The fact that you're still going on about how FPTP returned Labour governments shows you clearly didn't even read the posts saying that that was not the point.

Not so, as my comment about Labour governments was solely aimed at your previous assertion that "my favourite political party" were the beneficiary and all my posting did was to refute your incorrect assertion. Did you really expect that I would allow such an indiscretion as that to go unanswered?

As I have said on many occasions in the past on this website, it is those who are in need of any help they can receive in a posting line of thought that stands on "feet of clay" always revert to the adversarial interrogation of those with opposite views.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not so, as my comment about Labour governments was solely aimed at your previous assertion that "my favourite political party" were the beneficiary and all my posting did was to refute your incorrect assertion. Did you really expect that I would allow such an indiscretion as that to go unanswered?

As I have said on many occasions in the past on this website, it is those who are in need of any help they can receive in a posting line of thought that stands on "feet of clay" always revert to the adversarial interrogation of those with opposite views.

And I will repeat myself that you have failed to address the issue. Your own party grossly benefiting from it is not countered by the fact that it isn't alone in that advantage.

As for the condescension of your second paragraph, believe whatever makes you feel smuggest Paul; it makes no difference to me.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And I will repeat myself that you have failed to address the issue. Your own party grossly benefiting from it is not countered by the fact that it isn't alone in that advantage.

As for the condescension of your second paragraph, believe whatever makes you feel smuggest Paul; it makes no difference to me.

Time to take a less polite tack in my answer this time. All the whinging, whining and cries of "unfair" about the current electoral system are just "sour grapes". You just have to live with the fact that the electoral status quo is one that had an opportunity to have a change not so very long ago and was not accepted by the electorate.

I voted "Remain" in the recent referendum, but I accept the result that the "Leave" side won the referendum and am happy to accept that situation.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Time to take a less polite tack in my answer this time. All the whinging, whining and cries of "unfair" about the current electoral system are just "sour grapes". You just have to live with the fact that the electoral status quo is one that had an opportunity to have a change not so very long ago and was not accepted by the electorate.

I voted "Remain" in the recent referendum, but I accept the result that the "Leave" side won the referendum and am happy to accept that situation.

Yet again, you're blustering. It's unfair because it results in a grossly unrepresentative system. For all your bragging, your answer has boiled down to "well it lets Labour in", "you're just bitter" and "people voted not to change it", as though any of those has any impact on whether or not it's a fair system.

Hardly a titan of the intellectual stage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yet again, you're blustering. It's unfair because it results in a grossly unrepresentative system. For all your bragging, your answer has boiled down to "well it lets Labour in", "you're just bitter" and "people voted not to change it", as though any of those has any impact on whether or not it's a fair system.

Hardly a titan of the intellectual stage.

Once again. you sit as judge and jury and make facetious comments such as "Hardly a titan of the intellectual stage" whilst still maintaining your implacable belief in the truth of your personal beliefs on this matter to the detriment of those who hold differing views.

Your comment about my intelligence at the age of 71, having suffered a stroke in July 2012, does not seem to tally with what my consultant states at the quarterly meetings we have and be assured that my IQ is still one to be proud of.

I am now finally closing this exchange of views, before the forum moderation and administration staff decide to take action that will be to the detriment of both of us.

 

[northwichcat]

Time to take a less polite tack in my answer this time. All the whinging, whining and cries of "unfair" about the current electoral system are just "sour grapes". You just have to live with the fact that the electoral status quo is one that had an opportunity to have a change not so very long ago and was not accepted by the electorate.

The referendum was on AV because David Cameron refused to have one on PR as PR would have likely meant there would never have been a majority Conservative government ever again - that wasn't democratic, that was David Cameron acting as the privileged spoilt brat that he always has been and always will be but at the same time pretending he wanted a 'fair society.'

If we'd had one on PR and the public voted in favour, but then people who voted in favour complained about there being too many UKIP MPs then it would be whinging. However, your post just proves you want majority Conservative governments and will accept nothing less, even when 63% of voters don't vote Conservative.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

which form of PR ? and how does this sit with the potential changes in behaviours if STV is used ?

giving the numbers of seats allocated to UKIP in the above fantasy i'm guessing some sort of share of national vote measure . there is NO factual basis for the figures given as a resulr of PR in the above ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The impact on Labours and the Conservatives is most noticeable if the fantasy of share of national vote is used rather than the weird multi member large constituencies used in the Euros or STV being used on current ( or the 'new' 600 MPs/ constituencies being proposed )

Labours opposition to changes in boundaries and voting methods is because they would remove the latter day rotten boroughs which prop up Labours; seat count

If you read the post above your own one:

Yes I agree it would look different depending how exactly PR got implemented but that was really to highlight how it would affect the Conservatives and Labour negatively and why neither party are likely to be in favour of implementing it.

As much as I hate UKIP the facts are a considerable number of people voted for them in the most recent general election and they got more votes than any other party in the last Euro elections but I imagine support will subside once Brexit has been achieved.

 

[Tetchytyke]

those who would be the most vociferous in finding fault with the Magna Carta after a certain happening at Runnymede

The Magna Carta, for all the waffle, changed nada.

Time to take a less polite tack in my answer this time. All the whinging, whining and cries of "unfair" about the current electoral system are just "sour grapes".

Is it? Is it really?

My party, the Lib Dems, were "annihilated" at the polls, winning 2.4m votes but only eight seats. UKIP did even worse, winning 3.8m votes but just the one solitary seat.

The SNP, however, had a "fantastic" election, gaining 56 seats with their 1.4m votes.

I am completely opposed to UKIP and even I can see that something's gone a bit awry if a 12% vote share in the UK equates to 0.15% seat share in Parliament, whilst a 4.5% vote share gives you 8.6% of the seats.

 

[Steveman]

Once again. you sit as judge and jury and make facetious comments such as "Hardly a titan of the intellectual stage" whilst still maintaining your implacable belief in the truth of your personal beliefs on this matter to the detriment of those who hold differing views.

Your comment about my intelligence at the age of 71, having suffered a stroke in July 2012, does not seem to tally with what my consultant states at the quarterly meetings we have and be assured that my IQ is still one to be proud of.

I am now finally closing this exchange of views, before the forum moderation and administration staff decide to take action that will be to the detriment of both of us.

I would advise you to do as I have done and stick this nasty individual on your ignore list.

 

[northwichcat]

Your comment about my intelligence at the age of 71, having suffered a stroke in July 2012, does not seem to tally with what my consultant states at the quarterly meetings we have and be assured that my IQ is still one to be proud of.

I'm sure someone with your IQ will realise having a score of >100 means you are more intelligent than over 50% of people in the same age group as yourself and that someone who is 90 who has a higher IQ than you isn't necessarily more intelligent than yourself.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Once again. you sit as judge and jury and make facetious comments such as "Hardly a titan of the intellectual stage" whilst still maintaining your implacable belief in the truth of your personal beliefs on this matter to the detriment of those who hold differing views.

Your comment about my intelligence at the age of 71, having suffered a stroke in July 2012, does not seem to tally with what my consultant states at the quarterly meetings we have and be assured that my IQ is still one to be proud of.

I am now finally closing this exchange of views, before the forum moderation and administration staff decide to take action that will be to the detriment of both of us.

I seem to have hit a nerve. The fact that you refuse to engage with the issue of FPTP and instead brag, bluster and solely attack my personality are telling.

At least when I make facetious comments they're a footnote to a point. Somewhat ironic that you accuse me of attacking you when you'be still yet to bring any substance to the debate (despite many assurances and promises that you are fully capable of doing so).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would advise you to do as I have done and stick this nasty individual on your ignore list.

You say "nasty"; I say "says things you don't like to hear".

It's very telling that it's only a small clique of the most intolerant and belligerent members of this forum that ever really have a problem.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's very telling that it's only a small clique of the most intolerant and belligerent members of this forum that ever really have a problem.

If the cap fits, wear it.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

The referendum was on AV because David Cameron refused to have one on PR as PR would have likely meant there would never have been a majority Conservative government ever again - that wasn't democratic, that was David Cameron acting as the privileged spoilt brat that he always has been and always will be but at the same time pretending he wanted a 'fair society.'

If we'd had one on PR and the public voted in favour, but then people who voted in favour complained about there being too many UKIP MPs then it would be whinging. However, your post just proves you want majority Conservative governments and will accept nothing less, even when 63% of voters don't vote Conservative.

'PR' is not a method of voting , it is a term that encompasses various alternatives

it is interesting that people consistently avoid discussing STV when the topic comes up ...

 

[northwichcat]

'PR' is not a method of voting , it is a term that encompasses various alternatives

Yes you could have AV and have PR. I don't think the Lib Dems were fussy about what form of PR should be put forward but Cameron didn't want PR full stop and the voters who wanted a change weren't convinced AV alone would make much difference for the better.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If the cap fits, wear it.

Paul, it is quite clear that despite your pseudo-intellectualist ego you have no explanation for how FPTP is fair, and resort to insults instead. Your outrage at the audacity of anyone daring to challenge you only strengthens my point.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Yes you could have AV and have PR. I don't think the Lib Dems were fussy about what form of PR should be put forward but Cameron didn't want PR full stop and the voters who wanted a change weren't convinced AV alone would make much difference for the better.

Because AV is not really PR - in fact the Electoral Reform society go as far as to suggest it is NOT PR at all.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/alternative-vote

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Mod Note: This thread is for discussing Unions and their status in the UK. It is not a thread for discussing DOO and any such posts are liable for deletion without further warning.

Just a general reminder what this thread is supposed to be discussing.

 

[fowler9]

We've drifted off topic and started arguing with each other. On the plus side everyone is obviously switched on enough to have an opinion, on the down side people are falling out. We can all have different opinions and not fall out.

Back on topic I really wish my employer was unionised especially at the minute. The company is performing really badly and different departments are looking for other people to blame. There is all kinds happening,

 

[AndrewE]

I haven't dared look at this thread before now (and still don't want to go back and maybe get into a fight.) However, if you haven't watched "The Victorian Slum" on BBC2, I suggest that anyone who doubts the need for Trades Unions looks at this evening's episode and then thinks twice before demonising such organisations. So apologies if this is old hat to some, but...

One example: Dockers queueing, fighting (and even dying) for a day's casual labour. Another was tailors working all day, only to earn a quarter of the cost of a night's kip without any money left over for food.
A

 

[ExRes]

I haven't dared look at this thread before now (and still don't want to go back and maybe get into a fight.) However, if you haven't watched "The Victorian Slum" on BBC2, I suggest that anyone who doubts the need for Trades Unions looks at this evening's episode and then thinks twice before demonising such organisations. So apologies if this is old hat to some, but...

One example: Dockers queueing, fighting (and even dying) for a day's casual labour. Another was tailors working all day, only to earn a quarter of the cost of a night's kip without any money left over for food.
A

I counter you with WW2, when the unions were regularly striking for better pay and conditions while serviceman were being killed, where ships lay idle in ports with their cargo unloaded because dock workers wanted to hold the country to ransom, whichever way you look at it the Unions, Management and Government have never been any better than each other

 

[Harbornite]

I haven't dared look at this thread before now (and still don't want to go back and maybe get into a fight.) However, if you haven't watched "The Victorian Slum" on BBC2, I suggest that anyone who doubts the need for Trades Unions looks at this evening's episode and then thinks twice before demonising such organisations. So apologies if this is old hat to some, but...

One example: Dockers queueing, fighting (and even dying) for a day's casual labour. Another was tailors working all day, only to earn a quarter of the cost of a night's kip without any money left over for food.
A

Good program that. Despite being someone who dislikes certain aspects of socialism, I agree with you.

 

[northwichcat]

Because AV is not really PR - in fact the Electoral Reform society go as far as to suggest it is NOT PR at all.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/alternative-vote

The EU elections are a form of PR. The point I was trying to make is if that system was changed so you could choose your first choice party and your second choice party but you still chose parties for the whole region rather than candidates, it would be AV and PR combined, not AV instead of PR.

For some reason the Conservatives introduced AV for the new PCC elections, despite the referendum result being against introducing it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The EU elections are a form of PR. The point I was trying to make is if that system was changed so you could choose your first choice party and your second choice party but you still chose parties for the whole region rather than candidates, it would be AV and PR combined, not AV instead of PR.

For some reason the Conservatives introduced AV for the new PCC elections, despite the referendum result being against introducing it.

Can I refer you to posting # 112 which makes reference to the title of this thread,

 

[AnonymousUser1]

We've drifted off topic and started arguing with each other. On the plus side everyone is obviously switched on enough to have an opinion, on the down side people are falling out. We can all have different opinions and not fall out.

Back on topic I really wish my employer was unionised especially at the minute. The company is performing really badly and different departments are looking for other people to blame. There is all kinds happening,

unionisation would not change that , even if you were in a business with a 'closed' Union ( closed shops are illegal, but recognising a single union is legitmaite and that can end up as a bit of self licking lolly - never mind genuine 'closed ' unions like CSCSA .... ) especially if the one union claims to represent all or includes in it's membership those in first and second line management and equivalent graded workers.

 

[northwichcat]

Can I refer you to posting # 112 which makes reference to the title of this thread,

So you were happy to discuss the off-topic postings until you realised no-one else agreed with you and now you want to remind me of the thread title? However, when I said discussing Prestbury and Wilmslow was off-topic in the GHA Coaches in Administration thread you continued to discuss the topic without starting a new thread.