Tynwald members get pay rise

[John Wright]

22 hours ago, Declan said:

Actually they won the next election in 1950 but with a reduced majority of only 5. 

Called another election a year later, got 48.8% of the popular vote (vs the Tories 48.0%), but fewer seats than the Tories because of how the votes were distributed. 

Labour got - 

47.7% in 1945

46.1% in 1950

48.8% in 1951

Generally speaking the British people vote for the Government until they are heartily sick of them.  

Apart from 1945 (which was the first election in 10 years) "the Government" won the popular vote every election between 1924 and 1964. Since then the governing party lost 3 times in the 70s then 1997 and 2010.  

 

19 hours ago, woolley said:

There wasn't an extant "government" to vote for in 1945 because the coalition wasn't standing. OK, they struggled on from 1950 to 1951 but they were as good as hoofed out. The zeitgeist had moved on.

 

17 hours ago, Declan said:

They got the most votes in the General Election they "lost". More votes than any party got until the Tories in 1992, more than they themselves got in 1945. They were hoofed out by a quirk in the electoral system*, not because their policies were rejected. In fact the "The Zeitgeist" was firmly in favour of their reforms - the Tories ran on a platform of keeping the Welfare State and the NHS. 

 

 

* and because the Liberal support collapsed and their supporters did what they always do when push comes to shove and backed the Tories.

 

9 hours ago, woolley said:

They still lost.

 

28 minutes ago, Declan said:

That wasn't your original point. 

All this demonstrates is that who wins depends very much on how much, and how, you gerrymander your electoral system.

Every jurisdiction believes it has the fairest, most equal, system, and looks at the way it, allegedly, protects, the country, minorities, ensures stability.

They don’t.

But, on major political decisions, altering existing constitutional arrangements, assuming you’re going to give the electorate a direct say, rather than rely on your elected representatives, requiring a supermajority protects against the tyranny of extremism and rule by one single vote.

[The Voice of Reason]

10 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

 

 

 

All this demonstrates is that who wins depends very much on how much, and how, you gerrymander your electoral system.

Every jurisdiction believes it has the fairest, most equal, system, and looks at the way it, allegedly, protects, the country, minorities, ensures stability.

They don’t.

But, on major political decisions, altering existing constitutional arrangements, assuming you’re going to give the electorate a direct say, rather than rely on your elected representatives, requiring a supermajority protects against the tyranny of extremism and rule by one single vote.

Requiring a supermajority is merely an attempt to maintain the status quo and to defeat democracy. If a majority ( even if just 50% + 1 ) wish to change the status quo then it should be changed. How is that “ the tyranny of extremism” ?

[Ringy Rose]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If a majority ( even if just 50% + 1 ) wish to change the status quo then it should be changed. How is that “ the tyranny of extremism” ?

There’s a very obvious reason why power-sharing in Northern Ireland requires cross-community consensus, a super-majority. And those same reasons apply in most circumstances.

But I appreciate that, as a die-hard Brexitist, you won’t like the idea of a supermajority.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

9 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

There’s a very obvious reason why power-sharing in Northern Ireland requires cross-community consensus, a super-majority. And those same reasons apply in most circumstances.

But I appreciate that, as a die-hard Brexitist, you won’t like the idea of a supermajority.

 

My comments weren’t specific to Brexit. They are about a general principle.

But yes myself, and a whole lot of others would be mightily angry, if say 59% voted to Leave and their wishes were denied ( say in the case of a 60% “ supermajority “). 

[Non-Believer]

Stu Peters has been commenting on a post on FB, asking why Tynwald members and Govt employees shouldn't receive a cost of living pay increase (6%)?

What about those employees who haven't received a cost of living pay increase of anything like 6% (if anything at all) in order to cope with the extra living costs that our train wreck of a Govt has contributed to in no small way, Stu?

[The Voice of Reason]

9 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Stu Peters has been commenting on a post on FB, asking why Tynwald members and Govt employees shouldn't receive a cost of living pay increase (6%)?

What about those employees who haven't received a cost of living pay increase of anything like 6% (if anything at all) in order to cope with the extra living costs that our train wreck of a Govt has contributed to in no small way, Stu?

And what about those employees who have received much more than 6. %?

Funny how nobody makes comparisons with them.

[Twitch]

10 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Stu Peters has been commenting on a post on FB, asking why Tynwald members and Govt employees shouldn't receive a cost of living pay increase (6%)?

What about those employees who haven't received a cost of living pay increase of anything like 6% (if anything at all) in order to cope with the extra living costs that our train wreck of a Govt has contributed to in no small way, Stu?

Is he still on the fags? I mean, they can't be cheap these days so this 6% rise will help soften the blow.

[Turtleish]

Also with doing percentage uplift on all wages, this just increases the gap between highest and lowest earners. Why not a fixed figure? 

[The Voice of Reason]

4 minutes ago, Twitch said:

Is he still on the fags? I mean, they can't be cheap these days so this 6% rise will help soften the blow.

But think how much tax smokers contribute to Government coffers (or coughers even)

[La Colombe]

32 minutes ago, Twitch said:

Is he still on the fags? 

Surely not? 

[Jarndyce]

37 minutes ago, Twitch said:

Is he still on the fags?

Maybe he should be given Health…🙂

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Stu Peters has been commenting on a post on FB, asking why Tynwald members and Govt employees shouldn't receive a cost of living pay increase (6%)?

I’ve agreed with Stu twice in two days, there’s must be a twist in the space time continuum or something.

He is right, though, why shouldn’t coalface civil servants get a pay rise to offset the increased cost of living? 6% when inflation is 10% is not unreasonable.

[Fred the shred]

Their wages were linked some time ago because they were getting maligned for setting their own pay increases so now they are distanced from it.   They are still getting stick, sometimes you just can’t win.

[Banker]

As well as agreeing own  pay rise, treasury have confirmed state pensions will go up in line with UK triple lock £8.5% 

[Expat.]

3 hours ago, Banker said:

As well as agreeing own  pay rise, treasury have confirmed state pensions will go up in line with UK triple lock £8.5% 

Fekkin yes...