In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:27:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In general, things only ever get near a vote for industrial action
when negotiations have failed. And the workforce are well aware of
this. I've personally never seen any vote for industrial action
where the result wasn't an overwhelming majority in favour. Can't
really see any point in going to the vote if you don't already
know there is a big majority in favour of it.

So a requirement for 40% of those eligible to be in support _really_
shouldn't be a big issue, should it...?

Shouldn't be an issue to have the same sort of thing for
parliamentary elections either.

Not quite so simple, since it's not yes/no.

Some form of compulsory voting. Other countries do it.

Indeed. Probably some kind of minimum turnout/quorum, though, would
would better.

The good thing about it *not* being compulsory is that it's an indicator
of how well the political system is working - or not.

And the same for voting within parliament.

No excuses there. They're paid to bloody debate and vote, they can
bloody debate and vote.

Actually that's not all they're paid to do.

It's also odd that some insist on secret ballots where they feel ever so
sure it would benefit their narrow views, but on one of the most
fundamental principles of UK justice, the jury system, such a vote is
open.

First parliament now the jury system. Where next in your desperate
attempts to avoid accepting that the changes proposed are reasonable and
proportionate.
Basically they wish any goalposts moved in an attempt to get the result
they want. Regardless if it is a majority view or not.

Who is "they" in this context?
--
bert