Who will win the General Election?

Talk about anything you want in here.

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 7105
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by loan_star » Mon May 11, 2015 11:23 am

Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
In that case then, the electorate that didnt vote obviously must be ok with abiding with the outcome of the election?

As for the riots, why is it that the left wing refer to the Tories as "scum"? The only scum I can see are those that graffiti a war memorial.

Fatty eats roadkill
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:31 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: On top of a 29 year old big chested woman

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Fatty eats roadkill » Mon May 11, 2015 12:11 pm

loan_star wrote:
Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
In that case then, the electorate that didnt vote obviously must be ok with abiding with the outcome of the election?

As for the riots, why is it that the left wing refer to the Tories as "scum"? The only scum I can see are those that graffiti a war memorial.
Those that didn't vote are obviously ok with the result of the election otherwise they'd have voted.

As for those naughty naughty people you mention they are probably merely gullible puppets of some serious left wing nut jobs. Socialist Worker is a seriously dangerous and fucked up group.

Check out some of their current and previous members.
Waiting for Raj to shaft them!

The Big Dawg
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:31 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by The Big Dawg » Mon May 11, 2015 4:32 pm

Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
What utter bollocks!

Union members who dont vote do so out of pure apathy or an unwillingness to disagree with the hardliners.

Introducing a minimum will ensure that if the issue is important enough people will have to vote, not just sit on their arse because they're too lazy or scared to vote for what they think.

Trade union ballots have next to zero legitimacy as it stands. You're a rep aren't you? If so, its genuinely shocking if you actually believe what you wrote above.
I AM JAZZ MAVERICK

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by QuakerPete » Mon May 11, 2015 5:26 pm

The Big Dawg wrote:
Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
What utter bollocks!

Union members who dont vote do so out of pure apathy or an unwillingness to disagree with the hardliners.

Introducing a minimum will ensure that if the issue is important enough people will have to vote, not just sit on their arse because they're too lazy or scared to vote for what they think.

Trade union ballots have next to zero legitimacy as it stands. You're a rep aren't you? If so, its genuinely shocking if you actually believe what you wrote above.
Not sure you know the thoughts of union members who don't vote. Agree with Fatty, if you want a result either way then vote, if you don't then get a result you may not agree with. Putting an arbitrary minimum on a union vote is anti-democratic

The Big Dawg
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:31 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by The Big Dawg » Mon May 11, 2015 6:52 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
The Big Dawg wrote:
Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
What utter bollocks!

Union members who dont vote do so out of pure apathy or an unwillingness to disagree with the hardliners.

Introducing a minimum will ensure that if the issue is important enough people will have to vote, not just sit on their arse because they're too lazy or scared to vote for what they think.

Trade union ballots have next to zero legitimacy as it stands. You're a rep aren't you? If so, its genuinely shocking if you actually believe what you wrote above.
Not sure you know the thoughts of union members who don't vote. Agree with Fatty, if you want a result either way then vote, if you don't then get a result you may not agree with. Putting an arbitrary minimum on a union vote is anti-democratic
Ok, so to get this straight - I don't know why union members dont vote, but somehow you and fatty do know that its actually because they always agree with the result?! Nice logic there hot shot :lol:

A minimum should be placed on all actionable ballots. It isn't democracy of any worth when the majority of the electorate are too apathetic to do anything other than sit back and let the hardliners/agenda driven drive the results. Then again, given the socialist fuckwits who generally run the unions, you can see why their idea of democracy is ambiguous at best.
I AM JAZZ MAVERICK

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14080
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Darlo_Pete » Mon May 11, 2015 7:41 pm

I used to be a union steward for around 20 years, before I left on a matter of principal. What annoyed me were members who voted in a strike ballot and voted not to go on strike. Then if the ballot voted for a strike, they would cross the picket line. To me it's like they were saying I'll accept the vote if it goes my way, but if it doesn't go my way I'll stick two fingers up at you and won't accept what the majority who could vote voted for.

Beano
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Who will win the General Election?

Post by Beano » Mon May 11, 2015 8:31 pm

Darlo_Pete wrote:I used to be a union steward for around 20 years, before I left on a matter of principal. What annoyed me were members who voted in a strike ballot and voted not to go on strike. Then if the ballot voted for a strike, they would cross the picket line. To me it's like they were saying I'll accept the vote if it goes my way, but if it doesn't go my way I'll stick two fingers up at you and won't accept what the majority who could vote voted for.
As a member of a union who has repeatedly voted against strike action, I'm in total agreement, Pete.

If you cross the picket line, you should be forced to resign your union membership and barred from joining any other.

But, I've never seen any of the aforementioned folk refuse any of the improved pay and conditions gained.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by QuakerPete » Mon May 11, 2015 9:02 pm

The Big Dawg wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
The Big Dawg wrote:
Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
What utter bollocks!

Union members who dont vote do so out of pure apathy or an unwillingness to disagree with the hardliners.

Introducing a minimum will ensure that if the issue is important enough people will have to vote, not just sit on their arse because they're too lazy or scared to vote for what they think.

Trade union ballots have next to zero legitimacy as it stands. You're a rep aren't you? If so, its genuinely shocking if you actually believe what you wrote above.
Not sure you know the thoughts of union members who don't vote. Agree with Fatty, if you want a result either way then vote, if you don't then get a result you may not agree with. Putting an arbitrary minimum on a union vote is anti-democratic
Ok, so to get this straight - I don't know why union members dont vote, but somehow you and fatty do know that its actually because they always agree with the result?! Nice logic there hot shot :lol:

A minimum should be placed on all actionable ballots. It isn't democracy of any worth when the majority of the electorate are too apathetic to do anything other than sit back and let the hardliners/agenda driven drive the results. Then again, given the socialist fuckwits who generally run the unions, you can see why their idea of democracy is ambiguous at best.
Please point out where I said I knew the intentions of any non-voting Union member. Apathy is part of democracy - just as in the general election - do we impose minimum turnouts on local council or European elections or even mayoral elections? If so, then no-one would be voted in. As long as union elections are free, fair, open to all members and secret (just as they've been legislated for) then why should they have arbitrary limits applied . . . unless it's politically inspired of course!!! Then what price democracy?

Beano
Posts: 1461
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Beano » Mon May 11, 2015 9:10 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
The Big Dawg wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
The Big Dawg wrote:
Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
What utter bollocks!

Union members who dont vote do so out of pure apathy or an unwillingness to disagree with the hardliners.

Introducing a minimum will ensure that if the issue is important enough people will have to vote, not just sit on their arse because they're too lazy or scared to vote for what they think.

Trade union ballots have next to zero legitimacy as it stands. You're a rep aren't you? If so, its genuinely shocking if you actually believe what you wrote above.
Not sure you know the thoughts of union members who don't vote. Agree with Fatty, if you want a result either way then vote, if you don't then get a result you may not agree with. Putting an arbitrary minimum on a union vote is anti-democratic
Ok, so to get this straight - I don't know why union members dont vote, but somehow you and fatty do know that its actually because they always agree with the result?! Nice logic there hot shot :lol:

A minimum should be placed on all actionable ballots. It isn't democracy of any worth when the majority of the electorate are too apathetic to do anything other than sit back and let the hardliners/agenda driven drive the results. Then again, given the socialist fuckwits who generally run the unions, you can see why their idea of democracy is ambiguous at best.
Please point out where I said I knew the intentions of any non-voting Union member. Apathy is part of democracy - just as in the general election - do we impose minimum turnouts on local council or European elections or even mayoral elections? If so, then no-one would be voted in. As long as union elections are free, fair, open to all members and secret (just as they've been legislated for) then why should they have arbitrary limits applied . . . unless it's politically inspired of course!!! Then what price democracy?
Totally agree, Pete.

When was the last time any government was validated by 50+% of the population?

Darlogramps
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Darlogramps » Mon May 11, 2015 10:33 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
The Big Dawg wrote:
Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
What utter bollocks!

Union members who dont vote do so out of pure apathy or an unwillingness to disagree with the hardliners.

Introducing a minimum will ensure that if the issue is important enough people will have to vote, not just sit on their arse because they're too lazy or scared to vote for what they think.

Trade union ballots have next to zero legitimacy as it stands. You're a rep aren't you? If so, its genuinely shocking if you actually believe what you wrote above.
Not sure you know the thoughts of union members who don't vote. Agree with Fatty, if you want a result either way then vote, if you don't then get a result you may not agree with. Putting an arbitrary minimum on a union vote is anti-democratic
I disagree. If enough people care about the issue, they'll vote. If they don't vote, then they're clearly not that fussed either way.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by QuakerPete » Mon May 11, 2015 11:10 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
The Big Dawg wrote:
Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.
What utter bollocks!

Union members who dont vote do so out of pure apathy or an unwillingness to disagree with the hardliners.

Introducing a minimum will ensure that if the issue is important enough people will have to vote, not just sit on their arse because they're too lazy or scared to vote for what they think.

Trade union ballots have next to zero legitimacy as it stands. You're a rep aren't you? If so, its genuinely shocking if you actually believe what you wrote above.
Not sure you know the thoughts of union members who don't vote. Agree with Fatty, if you want a result either way then vote, if you don't then get a result you may not agree with. Putting an arbitrary minimum on a union vote is anti-democratic
I disagree. If enough people care about the issue, they'll vote. If they don't vote, then they're clearly not that fussed either way.
I guess that's a hair-splitting way of saying something similar, except second guessing non-voters as "not that fussed"

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14080
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Darlo_Pete » Tue May 12, 2015 5:45 am

Even though I'm sadly no longer in the union, if they vote for a strike I won't cross a picket line, even though half the union members will happily cross the picket line.

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by lo36789 » Tue May 12, 2015 6:15 am

If half will surely that means half don't want to strike, therein there shouldn't have been a majority in favour?

Fatty eats roadkill
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:31 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: On top of a 29 year old big chested woman

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Fatty eats roadkill » Tue May 12, 2015 8:37 am

Why does it mean they don't want to io? It takes about 10 seconds to put a cross in a box, fold the paper and put it in a prepaid envelope. If they don't want to strike they'll surely vote and vote against.

Jazz I've never said I know how they vote. I stand by what I said earlier. If someone can't be bothered to vote then they are implying they agree with the majority vote of those who bothered. Luckily when my Union has balloted on my company they have had a massive turnout. The last ballot last year was a 90% turnout.
Waiting for Raj to shaft them!

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by lo36789 » Tue May 12, 2015 10:13 am

It takes about 10 seconds to put a cross in a box, fold the paper and put it in a prepaid envelope. If they want to strike they'll surely vote and vote for.

Personally, if I wanted something to change I would vote on it. I agree that a non voter is effectively saying they do not have a strong view either way. It still infers to me that you are happy with things the way they are - otherwise you would vote for change them.

I havn't looked but I bet 90% of the petitions on the epetition website are a load of tosh and I disagree with them. Am I going to bother voting for a counter-petition...no. That none vote is definitely not an indication that otherwise I agree.

Fatty eats roadkill
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:31 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: On top of a 29 year old big chested woman

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Fatty eats roadkill » Tue May 12, 2015 3:30 pm

What on earth has an epetition got to do with anything?
Waiting for Raj to shaft them!

Fatty eats roadkill
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:31 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: On top of a 29 year old big chested woman

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Fatty eats roadkill » Tue May 12, 2015 5:13 pm

60% of network rail voted in their ballot. Wonder if the Tories want to change their plans to 75%
Waiting for Raj to shaft them!

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14080
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Darlo_Pete » Tue May 12, 2015 7:33 pm

I think they've said that a 40% turnout is what is needed to have a legal strike. A lot of unions won't bother holding strike ballots, as they know they will never get a 40% turnout.

lo36789
Posts: 10930
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by lo36789 » Thu May 14, 2015 4:35 pm

lo36789 wrote:Just won't happen. This is how I expect the election to finish up. SNP will take more seats off labour than UKIP take off anybody.

1. Conservative
2. Labour (will lose to SNP and take from Lib Dems)
3. Lib Dem (will lose to labour)
4. SNP (will take from labour)
5. Green
6. UKIP (will take possibly 3 seats all ex-Tory seat)

I think UKIP is possibly the worst and most wasted protest vote there is.
Ah so close, if only I'd forseen the remaining Liberals heading right!

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14080
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Who will win the General Election?

Post by Darlo_Pete » Sun May 17, 2015 8:23 am

Most of the opposition seems intent on tearing itself apart and not providing any opposition to the Tories, apart from the SNP of course.

Post Reply