HYPOCRISY?

[Sgt.Rock]

The sour faced millionaire minister Francis Maude has been criticizing UNISON's mandate to strike on the 30th November due to what he says was a low voting turnout. The percentage of members who voted to strike is very close to the percentage of the electorate that elected the present government.

[jackthehat]

Hypocrisy? No.
At the General Election there had to be a result.....and the coalition Government is that result.

If Unisons mandate falls short of that required for a strike but they have decided on strike action anyway Maude is correct to highlight that.

[Sgt.Rock]

Wrong Jack - Of the members who voted there was overwhelming support to strike,so under the current rules - a mandate.

[jackthehat]

Well, in that case, he has a right to highlight the low turn out....mandate achieved, or not.

It's still not Hypocrisy, though.

[SeaJayPea]

Couldn't have put it better myself, Steve.

[notasyoungasiwas]

Nor me.

[elgreco]

Surely the point is that most of the people who were eligable to vote decided not to. Obviously not that important to the majority of the members.

[emmie]

perhaps many don't want to go on strike, but are forced to do so by their unions.

[Brenden]

Not forgetting em if you do not agree with the strike and report for work you are called a scab.

[Quizmonster]

The coalition government was NOT the result of the general election, it was the result of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans involving the three main parties and their leaders AFTER the election. Had Clegg been offered what he thought of as a "better" deal by Labour rather than the Tories, we would presumably now have a Lab/Lib coalition. That, of course, would not have been the result of the election either!
Grant Shapps - another Tory - made a similar point to Maude's a few months ago, namely that a given percentage of members of a union should agree for strike action to be legal. I'd be for that on one condition...that the same percentage of a constituency's voters would be required to vote FOR each parliamentary candidate before he/she could take the seat.

(Don't hold your breath waiting for the Tories to agree to that, though Maude and Shapps both got over 50% of their electorates in 2010.)

[buildersmate]

Were the added adjectives "sour-faced millionaire" to Mr Maude intended to add anything in particular to your argument? - other than to demonstrate your prejudice.

[Quizmonster]

I should, of course, have pointed out in my earlier response that Maude got only 37% of his TOTAL electorate. The "over 50%" referred only to those who bothered to vote at all. Clearly, he should not be an MP if 40%, say, were deemed to be the acceptable voting figure. So, yes, certainly hypocrisy if "do unto others" is of any relevance!

[venator]

Apathy rules!

[Sgt.Rock]

Buildersmate - What wrong with being descriptive? As for "prejudice" I am merely stating facts. You seem to have a problem with the truth when it doesn't suit your agenda.

[factor-fiction]

I hope that wasn't suggesting buildersmate is a pr!ck

[DrFilth]

elgreco >> Surely the point is that most of the people who were eligable to vote decided not to. Obviously not that important to the majority of the members. <<

same for the general election then

[Sgt.Rock]

Steve/Quizmonster you make some very valid points.
There are somethings you can't say on this site for fear of banning. Though I note that buildersmate has not attempted to contribute anything worthwhile.

[buildersmate]

I merely don't make a habit of contributing positively to those attempting a debate by asking questions that demonstrate their bias. Better to mock their bias.

[craft1948]

buildersmate is one of the most worthwhile contributors on this site..........and his obervation about bias was well founded.