HeadingNorth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The Coalition agreement isn't legally binding No, it isn't, unless they've already passed the Act which was supposed to encompass that rule into law. But if they shot themselves in the foot that badly, we could guarantee that never again would a hung Parliament feature a coalition that had Tories in it, regardless of how the seats might be divided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Here is a quick question for all those who are members of unions. This may have some baring on the spat between Labour and the Unions. Are your union subs a percentage of your earnings or a flat fee? Flat fee, but the fee is based upon your salary. So for example if you're on £16,000 you pay £8 a month. If you're on £20,000 you pay £11 a month. If you're on £25,000 you pay £16 a month. Although you all get the exact same service. Ah, here you go, a list of costs: http://www.unison.org.uk/membership/costs.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 thanks for the replies about the costs. I was thinking that the Labour support for a pay freeze may under attack by the unions because their income could be effected, but i'm barking up the wrong tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 He has no mandate. He failed to win an election against a party on its knees. The public never backed Cameron in sufficient numbers. It really is that simple. It's his achilles heel and it will be taken advantage of eventually. What an interesting way of spinning a thread. Cameron is the man in Downing Street. Miliband isn't Cameron increased his party vote at the last election. Brown didn't Cameon is flying high in the personal approval polls. Miliband has just sunk beneath Clegg in his. The unions are now criticising Miliband. His advisors are criticising him and his back benchers are as well. Cameron must be really cacking his pants. You should send him your post to cheer him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Why would he want to do that? He has a mandate for 5 years as well as an agreement requiring a 5 year parliamentary term. I suspect that Cameron is quite happy watching the Labour Party fall apart at the seems as it gets into spats with the hands that feed it. There's no need for any spin. He didn't win. Kind of like missing the biggest open goal in history. Why didn't he win? Why wasn't his party trusted enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 What an interesting way of spinning a thread. Cameron is the man in Downing Street. Miliband isn't Cameron increased his party vote at the last election. Brown didn't Cameon is flying high in the personal approval polls. Miliband has just sunk beneath Clegg in his. The unions are now criticising Miliband. His advisors are criticising him and his back benchers are as well. Cameron must be really cacking his pants. You should send him your post to cheer him up. I don't know if you noticed or not but the current government is not at all popular. The Fact that Disasterous Dave is going to try and bribe people for votes with tax cuts and the marriage allowance is neither here nor there as this is going to be negated with high enemployment and ill feeling. His best bet is to call an election now because from here on in, things are going to get much worse for him and his party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 He has no mandate. He failed to win an election against a party on its knees. The public never backed Cameron in sufficient numbers. It really is that simple. It's his achilles heel and it will be taken advantage of eventually. 2010 - Tory party = 36.1% voter share 2005 - Labour party = 35.2% voter share Cameron has a higher voter share than Tony Blair did in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 He has no mandate. He has the exact same mandate that every other Prime Minister has ever had, all the way back to Walpole - he can command a majority in the Commons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 2010 - Tory party = 36.1% voter share 2005 - Labour party = 35.2% voter share Cameron has a higher voter share than Tony Blair did in 2005. It didn't translate into Tory seats. So he didn't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't know if you noticed or not but the current government is not at all popular. The Fact that Disasterous Dave is going to try and bribe people for votes with tax cuts and the marriage allowance is neither here nor there as this is going to be negated with high enemployment and ill feeling. His best bet is to call an election now because from here on in, things are going to get much worse for him and his party. That is the funniest post I've read in years. Sadly I don't even think you believe a word of it either. Perhaps you should read Len McCluskey's words in the OP, or the latest YouGov poll which has Miliband dropping below Clegg in the popularity stakes, and that was taken before Labour's latest economic policy U turn.:hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.