A general election is nothing like a strike ballot which is almost always a basic yes or no.

Stop comparing them, they're nothing like each other.

Optimistic as ever

I think its the inconsistency of a government that has a 37% return, demanding that other systems of approval must represent a much higher figure.

The reality of the unions is that a strike ballot can only be conducted lawfully, by post. Which is about the most inconsistent and unreliable means by which to do so.

The idea that the number of votes necessary should be based on the number of members rather than the returns is absurd, because the returns include no votes as well and may well be related to a local rather than national matter.

But the whole thing is a strawman argument, because the actual reality of the Conservative position isn't about the percentages at all, its about reducing the power and influence of Unions and the capacity of unions to act against the interests of the Government and of Employers.

People who bang on about the percentages are missing the point, the people supporting the anti-union laws aren't interested in whether its 8% of the total membership, or 90% - they want to see the power of unions restricted, they'd support anti-union laws even if the strike actions were returning 100% of the members wishes for strike action.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

That's a very poor, simplistic interpretation of what is not a particularly complex argument.

Elections are about choosing representatives; there is no simple way to interpret abstentions as it isn't a case of support/oppose. As we need a government, it makes sense that the one chosen should be that with the most votes (or seats, in FPTP), ignoring the people who choose not to vote.

The difference is that motions to strike are about yes or no, and, because having a strike is not a matter of national importance, assuming an abstention is an indication of 'don't really care' is not only viable, but the most reasonable option.

Edited by ChuFukka (15 May 2015 4.48pm)

One was ruthlessly efficient, the other is dangerously incompetent. Both were horribly corrupt, but in different ways (efficient corruption vs nepotistic corruption). Its very easy when your the opposition, especially in an 'armed struggle' you may never actually survive, because ultimately you have 'right' on your side (more or less).

Of course the writing was on the wall with the ANC, because they were busier fighting the IFP than the state.

Its quite rare that 'liberation' movements actually make good governments - the kind of people involved rarely make good peace time leaders. The ANC by the start of the 80s had become more of a problem to the future of SA, than a solution to the problems. Effectively its political classes had been wiped out, either by decades in prison or more literally, and the generations that survied the armed struggle tended to be more gangster than idealist - The likes of Mandela were iconic, and would hold influence, but essentially 25 years in prison doesn't give you a grip on how the world works.

The rapidity of 'change' post Apathied generally resulted in a massive loss of the skilled and educated workforce leaving, and that desporia increasing over time as key jobs went to 'ANC faithful' over people who knew what they were doing.

In the reversal or Aptheid, the government of South Africa implemented its own racial policies which would effectively force more and more people to leave, taking more skills.

Exactly the problem of Zimbabwe, it wasn't about blacks and whites, it was about equality. Just taking power from the whites and giving it to the blacks, simply changes the problems you have (because now you have a racist government without the skills it needs to function).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

That's not an answer to his question - it's intentionally diversionary and shows the lack of a solid argument. It also assumes you can compare a general election to a yes/no vote, which, of course, you can't.

37% return of 30+ options.

I don't give a f*** how unjust they think a GE is, just don't compare it to a poxy strike ballot.

The idea that you can be a member when you don't do that job is equally absurd. Voting by post is presumably the only way to verify the votes have come from that particular union member.

The unions aren't interested in whether 10% or 100% of the public don't support them. And this strike is basically them asking for more money (than offered already), from us, the taxpayers.

Optimistic as ever