New Referendum

This is a general message forum for all football and other general posts. Images, banter and topic wandering allowed. ALL TICKET RELATED POSTS IN DEDICATED THREAD IN HERE ONLY. All ticket related posts elsewhere will be deleted.

Moderators: Virginia_R, nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R

User avatar
SheepRanger
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 6460
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Swine Down

Re: New Referendum

Post by SheepRanger » Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:23 am

DroopStreetOldBoys wrote:
QPR_John wrote:
Esox Lucius wrote: No, I don't think you understood my reply did you?
I think it best if we discontinue this tangent
The new rules governing strike ballots - increasing to 50% the voting threshold for union ballots turnouts (while retaining the requirement for there to be a simple majority of votes in favour of industrial action); introducing an additional requirement that 40% of all those entitled to vote in the ballot must vote in favour of industrial action in certain public services such as health, education, fire and transport;

Using the same rules as those for teachers etc then neither Brexit or the any of the Parties at a General election since the war (apart from Labour in 1951 - and they lost) would be legitimate. Thatcher wouldn't have even been an MP, nor Churchill in the last election before WWII.
Can there be a law that if employees don't like their employer they should be forced to get a job elsewhere?

William
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:48 am

Re: New Referendum

Post by William » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:24 pm

Unions should be water cannoned and abolished, there is enough laws to protect workers...............

User avatar
SheepRanger
dotorgsponsor
dotorgsponsor
Posts: 6460
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Swine Down

Re: New Referendum

Post by SheepRanger » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:33 pm

William wrote:Unions should be water cannoned and abolished, there is enough laws to protect workers...............
Southern rail is a prime example. I'd sack the lot of them and bring in new staff.

William
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:48 am

Re: New Referendum

Post by William » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:24 pm

damn right aniclap ...............

User avatar
Lee Gib
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007
Posts: 1879
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: Gibraltar

Re: New Referendum

Post by Lee Gib » Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:46 pm

..this new world will be so much fun
Image

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 8968
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: New Referendum

Post by UxbridgeR » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:15 pm

William wrote:Unions should be water cannoned and abolished, there is enough laws to protect workers...............
Those laws only exist because unions were brave enough to stand up for their basic rights. They are steadily being stripped away by our "new age" economy.

Still, you're alright, eh, Bill.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5735
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: New Referendum

Post by QPR_John » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:37 pm

UxbridgeR wrote:
William wrote:Unions should be water cannoned and abolished, there is enough laws to protect workers...............
Those laws only exist because unions were brave enough to stand up for their basic rights. They are steadily being stripped away by our "new age" economy.

Still, you're alright, eh, Bill.
You are completely right about unions standing up for the basic rights of their members. But that was when unions, but specifically their leaders, were interested in worker rights. Those rights have been won and of course unions have to exist to protect those rights. But now that is not their prime objective it has all changed now and they are de facto political activist or more to the point their leaders. Look at the current strikes on Southern, maybe it is for safety but why strike when not only commuters but many others want to use the trains. Could not the unions gain brownie points if they simply said they will strike outside of the holiday period. They simple want to disrupt however way they can.

Edit: distrust in final sentence
Last edited by QPR_John on Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 8968
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: New Referendum

Post by UxbridgeR » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:58 pm

QPR_John wrote:
UxbridgeR wrote:
William wrote:Unions should be water cannoned and abolished, there is enough laws to protect workers...............
Those laws only exist because unions were brave enough to stand up for their basic rights. They are steadily being stripped away by our "new age" economy.

Still, you're alright, eh, Bill.
You are completely right about unions standing up for the basic rights of their members. But that was when unions, but specifically their leaders, were interested in worker rights. Those rights have been won and of course unions have to exist to protect those rights. But now that is not their prime objective it has all changed now and they are de facto political activist or more to the point their leaders. Look at the current strikes on Southern, maybe it is for safety but why strike when not only commuters but many others want to use the trains. Could not the unions gain brownie points if they simply said they will strike outside of the holiday period. They simple want to distrust however way they can.
Rights which have been won can and are being eroded. I wouldn't deny that there can be a political element to some union activism, and it's often difficult to disentangle genuine safety issues from game playing. But in the case of Southern in particular, you have a company making big profits while running an appalling customer service, and trying to blame that on the unions. And their customers are not blind to that by any means.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

User avatar
DroopStreetOldBoys
Level 2 dot.orger
Level 2 dot.orger
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:10 pm

Re: New Referendum

Post by DroopStreetOldBoys » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:07 pm

William wrote:Unions should be water cannoned and abolished, there is enough laws to protect workers...............
Yeah, lets get back to the 1860s when they were illegal, things were so much better then.

User avatar
DroopStreetOldBoys
Level 2 dot.orger
Level 2 dot.orger
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:10 pm

Re: New Referendum

Post by DroopStreetOldBoys » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:13 pm

QPR_John wrote:
UxbridgeR wrote:
William wrote:Unions should be water cannoned and abolished, there is enough laws to protect workers...............
Those laws only exist because unions were brave enough to stand up for their basic rights. They are steadily being stripped away by our "new age" economy.

Still, you're alright, eh, Bill.
You are completely right about unions standing up for the basic rights of their members. But that was when unions, but specifically their leaders, were interested in worker rights. Those rights have been won and of course unions have to exist to protect those rights. But now that is not their prime objective it has all changed now and they are de facto political activist or more to the point their leaders. Look at the current strikes on Southern, maybe it is for safety but why strike when not only commuters but many others want to use the trains. Could not the unions gain brownie points if they simply said they will strike outside of the holiday period. They simple want to disrupt however way they can.

Edit: distrust in final sentence
What tosh, you realise people on strike lose their pay? and what's the point of losing pay if you don't cause disruption, it'd be pointless.? They're probably at their least militant since the 30's and why shouldn't they be political? They're there to improve the conditions of working people (originally just men, but times change). You can't do that just by negotiating a 1% pay rise

Satch
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 2176
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: New York City

Re: New Referendum

Post by Satch » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:16 pm

QPR_John wrote:
UxbridgeR wrote:
William wrote:Unions should be water cannoned and abolished, there is enough laws to protect workers...............
Those laws only exist because unions were brave enough to stand up for their basic rights. They are steadily being stripped away by our "new age" economy.

Still, you're alright, eh, Bill.
You are completely right about unions standing up for the basic rights of their members. But that was when unions, but specifically their leaders, were interested in worker rights. Those rights have been won and of course unions have to exist to protect those rights. But now that is not their prime objective it has all changed now and they are de facto political activist or more to the point their leaders. Look at the current strikes on Southern, maybe it is for safety but why strike when not only commuters but many others want to use the trains. Could not the unions gain brownie points if they simply said they will strike outside of the holiday period. They simple want to disrupt however way they can.

Edit: distrust in final sentence
It's industrial action, not a popularity contest. What do you think those brownie points would be worth in terms of meeting their achievements.
I hope May goes for hard brexit whilst lining up trade deals from other countries. Another vote wont count for anything when zee Germans, froggies and cloggies get voting next year. It will all implode naturally over the next 12 months.
Wow, absolute text book casual xenophobia, but let me guess that isn't why you voted out.
SheepRanger wrote:
DroopStreetOldBoys wrote:
SheepRanger wrote:
I have not met one fellow brexitier who didn't understand the failings of the EU machine. Even the uneducated ones were able to explain the downward pressures on salaries caused by an influx of cheap unskilled and semi skilled blue collar eastern European labour.
I can't say I met many people, on either side, who hadn't given it a lot of thought, and rightly so, it was a big decision. The idea that everybody voting out did so for the same reason, simply isn't true.

As for William's point, no you can't challenge an election on that basis, in fact according to this http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/_ ... the-UK.pdf the system for bringing a petition against an election seems designed to prevent it ever happening. UKIP are being looked at by the electoral commission to see if they've breached UK election law (they have form for using funds illegally) but even if found guilty (unlikely given the process) I can't see anything other than a fine being handed out.
I'm not suggesting that everyone who voted out did so for the same reason - just that from my close circle of friends they voted based on one issue. Obviously that's not statistically representative.
Yep there it is......
Were they able to back such a notion up with evidence beyond the anecdotal?
SheepRanger wrote:
Montag wrote:The liberal elite don't like democracy. That' why we have a representative "democracy". Government by referenda would be more in keeping with the true meaning of the word.
With the electorate only being deemed suitably educated to make decisions when the right result is obtained?
And there is the chip on the shoulder about education, only need some one to mention the 'will of the people' and we've got brexit bingo.
Montag wrote:The liberal elite don't like democracy. That' why we have a representative "democracy". Government by referenda would be more in keeping with the true meaning of the word.
And completely unworkable because very few political decisions work in isolation. If you put these two questions to separate referenda . "Would you like to pay less tax?" and "Would you like to see greater spending on public services" What do you think the outcomes would be?
William wrote:We voted out, it was a democratic vote, all those who voted leave were well aware of what they were voting for, when for example the Tories win an election, do the Labour party have the legal right to challenge on the basis the people did not understand what they voted for.............
Were they?
Esox Lucius wrote:Did we ever get our £350m a week back? The NHS could sure use it right now.
A case in point.

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 5735
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: New Referendum

Post by QPR_John » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:22 pm

DroopStreetOldBoys wrote:
QPR_John wrote:
UxbridgeR wrote:
Those laws only exist because unions were brave enough to stand up for their basic rights. They are steadily being stripped away by our "new age" economy.

Still, you're alright, eh, Bill.
You are completely right about unions standing up for the basic rights of their members. But that was when unions, but specifically their leaders, were interested in worker rights. Those rights have been won and of course unions have to exist to protect those rights. But now that is not their prime objective it has all changed now and they are de facto political activist or more to the point their leaders. Look at the current strikes on Southern, maybe it is for safety but why strike when not only commuters but many others want to use the trains. Could not the unions gain brownie points if they simply said they will strike outside of the holiday period. They simple want to disrupt however way they can.

Edit: distrust in final sentence
What tosh, you realise people on strike lose their pay? and what's the point of losing pay if you don't cause disruption, it'd be pointless.? They're probably at their least militant since the 30's and why shouldn't they be political? They're there to improve the conditions of working people (originally just men, but times change). You can't do that just by negotiating a 1% pay rise

Of course you think it tosh that is only to be expected

User avatar
DroopStreetOldBoys
Level 2 dot.orger
Level 2 dot.orger
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:10 pm

Re: New Referendum

Post by DroopStreetOldBoys » Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:13 pm

QPR_John wrote:
DroopStreetOldBoys wrote:
QPR_John wrote:
You are completely right about unions standing up for the basic rights of their members. But that was when unions, but specifically their leaders, were interested in worker rights. Those rights have been won and of course unions have to exist to protect those rights. But now that is not their prime objective it has all changed now and they are de facto political activist or more to the point their leaders. Look at the current strikes on Southern, maybe it is for safety but why strike when not only commuters but many others want to use the trains. Could not the unions gain brownie points if they simply said they will strike outside of the holiday period. They simple want to disrupt however way they can.

Edit: distrust in final sentence
What tosh, you realise people on strike lose their pay? and what's the point of losing pay if you don't cause disruption, it'd be pointless.? They're probably at their least militant since the 30's and why shouldn't they be political? They're there to improve the conditions of working people (originally just men, but times change). You can't do that just by negotiating a 1% pay rise

Of course you think it tosh that is only to be expected
I think I made it clear why, rather than simply saying tosh.

User avatar
DAVEf
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 27331
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:38 pm

Re: New Referendum

Post by DAVEf » Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:21 am

222gers wrote:
DAVEf wrote:
222gers wrote:The old failing of democracy - the people at the top take enough people in the middle with them to form a majority against those at the bottom.
The exception that proves the rule was the 1945 election when sufficient people in the middle went with people at the bottom to gain a majority against the people at the top.
So we're a bit along the road now. From what you are seeing, who do you think is going to benefit from whatever version of Brexit we end up with? And who will suffer most?
The sort of democratic choice we see in a referendum is of course a single issue affair whereas in an election we are looking at who best looks after our and our country's interest over a possible 5 years. So, supporters of various political parties will have voted with one accord either for or against Brexit. Who ulimately benefits from Brexit, no one can, with any certaincy, safely say at this moment in time.
If you genuinely believe the vote swung on party-political loyalties then I'd be better discussing it with my dog (and I wouldn't bore him with that).

And anyway, I asked who, given the information we currently have, you thought would benefit (and who would suffer) most. A simple opinion.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind".

User avatar
222gers
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 3243
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: New Referendum

Post by 222gers » Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:50 am

DAVEf wrote:
222gers wrote:
DAVEf wrote:
So we're a bit along the road now. From what you are seeing, who do you think is going to benefit from whatever version of Brexit we end up with? And who will suffer most?
The sort of democratic choice we see in a referendum is of course a single issue affair whereas in an election we are looking at who best looks after our and our country's interest over a possible 5 years. So, supporters of various political parties will have voted with one accord either for or against Brexit. Who ulimately benefits from Brexit, no one can, with any certaincy, safely say at this moment in time.
If you genuinely believe the vote swung on party-political loyalties then I'd be better discussing it with my dog (and I wouldn't bore him with that).

And anyway, I asked who, given the information we currently have, you thought would benefit (and who would suffer) most. A simple opinion.
I didn't say people voted by party loyalty, I just pointed out the difference between referenda and general evections. Blimey O'reilly. As for who would benefit, again, I merely pointed out that nobody as yet can give a definite answer. You seem to think you're the only one on here that voted remain. Well, I did as well.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest