Queen's speech - thoughts?

[specialsubject]

here's mine:

HS2 - yes, we really need this ridiculous trainset with the utterly fallacious cost-benefit analysis. Meanwhile our existing railways are falling apart.

frozen taxes - great. So how are things such as the above to get paid for?

right to buy from housing associations at a discount - so how's that going to improve housing supply?

ban legal highs - good, they are dangerous. Having them legal gives the impression that they aren't as well as making them accessible.

energy - 'increase energy security'. Read this week's private eye, and start making your own plans. It's not good, although it would have been just as bad if not worse under the others.

answers welcome!

30 hours free childcare - staffed by who?

Pretty much what I expected from the Tories.

Tory anti-strike laws are just their first attack on workers' rights

Tgovernment today unveiled proposals which will make it all but impossible for many workers to ever again legally protect their pay and conditions by going on strike.

Under these plans there will be a new minimum threshold of 50% on strike ballots, plus a new time limit on any action following a ballot. Taken individually, the measures may seem reasonable to some. But they come on top of huge amounts of existing regulation which already make the UK one of the least worker-friendly countries in Europe.

As things stand, in order to launch a strike, trade unions must navigate multiple pieces of legislation minutely governing the balloting process.

These heavy restrictions mean that previous widely supported strikes have already been banned by the courts, despite receiving majority support from union members on a high turnout.

In 2010, a strike by British Airways cabin crew was backed by 92.5% of workers on an 80% turnout. Yet the courts ruled it illegal anyway because a number of workers taking voluntary redundancy had also been balloted.

As a result of these complex regulations, the number of days lost to strike action reached an all-time low back in 2012, with just 248,000 working days being lost to industrial action. This compares to an average of 12.9 million during the 1970s.

With union membership also at the lowest level since the 1940s, the idea that trade union militancy is a big issue facing the country is simply laughable.

So why are the government so keen to restrict our right to strike even further?

Part of the reason is opportunity. This is the first Tory majority government in over twenty years and the party remains hostile to the trade union movement in principle.

But the other reason is austerity. The government have already pushed through some of the biggest public sector cuts in recent history, yet it has not so far resulted in widespread strike action. The fact that the government are pushing ahead with even more restrictive anti-strike laws anyway suggests that there are far worse cuts still to come.

With some public services ring-fenced from those cuts, many other public sector workers can also expect further real-terms cuts to their own pay and conditions.

And once this new law is in place it will also be far easier for the Tories to bring forward even more restrictions on workers’ rights, safe in the knowledge that it will be much harder for workers to fight against them.

Once these rights are lost they can be incredibly difficult to win back again. As things stand, the Labour party has an almost impossible hill to climb to get back into government in five years’ time. If the Tories push through these restrictions to workers rights now, they could be lost for a generation, if not forever.

The Tory attack on our human rights may have been halted for now, but their attack on workers rights is set to carry on.

uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/tory-anti-strike-laws-are-just-their-first-attack-135806087.html#iLuqUsv

Loved it, pity about the human rights legislation but that will come. The strike legislation actually protects workers rights, the millions who want to get to work but can't because a few tube drivers want more money.

Ditto on both points cdtaylornats.

My highlight was in parliament afterwards, when Harriet Harm-men as acting Labour leader within her speech had begrudging mentioned that she and Cameron had 'things in common' - and in reply he kinda agreed, but said that she was far posher than he, which brought the house down - and seemingly even tickled our Harriet in parts only Mr William Haig had previously managed, during their PMQT deputising exchanges.

trade unions must navigate multiple pieces of legislation minutely governing the balloting process

The regulations are straightforward and easy to follow. Balloting members who will not be involved in the strike (which was the issue in the BA case you quote) is clearly wrong. I am surprised the union made such a silly mistake.

Note that there is no requirement in the UK for the union to take part in a dispute settlement procedure, nor is it required that industrial action is only used as a last resort, nor does the UK prevent further industrial action during the lifetime of a previous collective agreement. All of these are fairly common elsewhere in Europe.

The Tory attack on our human rights may have been halted for now

That's because there isn't one. In essence they want to return to the status quo before the HRA, so the European Convention on Human Rights will still apply in the UK but our courts will not be subordinate to the European Court.

their attack on workers rights is set to carry on.

I do not see it as a huge attack on workers rights to insist that 50% of those eligible to vote must do so in order to call a strike. I do, however, agree that the proposed threshold for core public services makes it much harder for unions to call strikes in those areas. I would prefer either a lower threshold or removal of this threshold completely.

Loved it, pity about the human rights legislation but that will come. The strike legislation actually protects workers rights, the millions who want to get to work but can't because a few tube drivers want more money.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. All workers have a right to strike, and a right to exercise a strike.

All strikes will necessarily disrupt 'business as usual' - that's the whole point of a strike.

It is unions, sometimes using strikes as a means, have given us:

Weekends
Paid vacations
The 8-hour work day
Ending child labour
Work breaks, including paid lunch breaks
Equal pay for equal work for women
Abolition of sweatshops
Sick leave
Canada Pension Plan
Universal health care
The minimum wage
Pregnancy and parental Leave
The right to strike
Anti-discrimination rules at work
Overtime pay
Occupational health and safety
40 hour work week
Worker’s compensation
Employment Insurance
Pensions
Public education
Collective bargaining rights for employees
Wrongful termination laws
Whistleblower protection laws
Anti-sexual harassment laws
Holiday pay

If you don't support unions, and you don't support strikes, then you shouldn't take advantage of any of those things then.

trade unions must navigate multiple pieces of legislation minutely governing the balloting process

Note that there is no requirement in the UK for the union to take part in a dispute settlement procedure, nor is it required that industrial action is only used as a last resort, nor does the UK prevent further industrial action during the lifetime of a previous collective agreement. All of these are fairly common elsewhere in Europe.

Since when have unions ever 'arbitrarily' gone on strike without making a demand and getting involved in negotiations to have these demands met? Perhaps you're making up a straw man?

Do you think unions go on strike 'as a first resort'? Why would they? They are not paid when they go on strike, and they know that they are not only hurting businesses (for leverage), but inconveniencing the public. So - another straw man from you.

UK strike and anti-union laws are nonetheless some of the toughest in europe, and the number and intensity of strikes in the UK has been tiny compared with most of europe.

In what sense is even more anti-union, anti-strike legislation needed? Why is this needed now? I'll answer: it isn't. The Tories are against unions in principle and want to complete demolish them.

This will leave UK workers - already with some of the worst job security and worst job rights in europe - with almost nothing with which to defend themselves against the relentless attacks on their pay and working conditions we can expect from this government.

The Tory attack on our human rights may have been halted for now

That's because there isn't one. In essence they want to return to the status quo before the HRA, so the European Convention on Human Rights will still apply in the UK but our courts will not be subordinate to the European Court.

There is one. Firstly, the Tory scum wish to withdraw completely from the EHCR.

Secondly, any 'British Human Rights Act' will have even less teeth than the current one. There is no way a Tory government would bring in a bill which protects fundamental human rights while at the same time passing other legislation which violates them.

their attack on workers rights is set to carry on.

I do not see it as a huge attack on workers rights to insist that 50% of those eligible to vote must do so in order to call a strike. I do, however, agree that the proposed threshold for core public services makes it much harder for unions to call strikes in those areas. I would prefer either a lower threshold or removal of this threshold completely.

How unions decided whether or not to strike should be up to them, as it is a fundamental human right to withdraw your labour under collective bargaining.

It is also completely unacceptable that we have a grossly unfair and grossly unrepresentative electoral system where MPs are sometimes elected by a minority of the population and a tiny minority of the voters.

Your bias is showing.

Perhaps you're making up a straw man?

No I am not. I am pointing out that in many European countries there is a statutory dispute resolution procedure that unions must use before they can strike.

Do you think unions go on strike 'as a first resort'

No but they don't always use it as the last resort. I have seen a number of strikes in this country that would fail the test used in other countries.

In what sense is even more anti-union, anti-strike legislation needed

So you think that even if only 1% of the workforce vote, if a majority of them vote in favour of a strike there should be a strike?

The Tories are against unions in principle

Some Tories are but most acknowledge they can do a good job and are in favour of keeping them.

the Tory scum wish to withdraw completely from the EHCR

Some have suggested that may be the only way to stop the European Court (which has become pretty activist and is making laws, sometimes very badly, rather than simply interpreting them) making its rulings binding in the UK. However, the basics of the Convention are widely supported within the Conservative party.

There is no way a Tory government would bring in a bill which protects fundamental human rights while at the same time passing other legislation which violates them

It was a Conservative government that signed us up to the Convention in the first place.

The Human Rights withdrawal to the Trade Union movement – using examples given.

The BA Cabin Crew, back then one of the highest paid cabin crews within the whole industry e.g. plane loads more than Virgin, decided despite hundreds of £millions annual BA deep recession losses as passengers used discount carriers, to strike from 2009 to 2011 – no matter what damage it did to the company – similar to the ‘good old pre neo liberal shite’ 1970’s days when factories closed their doors for ever.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13373638
”The dispute began in 2009 over cost cutting but became bogged down over the loss of travel perks to striking staff and the dismissal of some employees who joined the industrial action.”

”The union boss admitted that the "very bitter dispute" had damaged the BA brand, but said: "We look forward to working with the company to repair any wounds."

The London Tube Strike over closures of various ticket offices with no compulsory redundancies, the trade union believed made the underground system ‘less safe’, which was spurious as the trains are usually an escalator down from the ticket office - and in the private sector, is both a Board decision and their responsibility
uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/07/uk-britain-strike-transport-idUKKCN0HW0JI20141007

In both dubious cases of the need to strike, the general public were severely inconvenienced travelling to holiday destinations and/or to work, which also damaged those companies due to output lost, while trying to survive a great recession.

*Legislation to protect ALL workers rights, please, not just those in organized trade unions, often with political points to make.

Removal of housing benefits for 18-21 year olds
More apprenticeships

How are the apprentices on £100 odd a week going to live without housing benefit if they aren't lucky enough to have supportive families?

A good point, but isn't the average weekly wage of apprentices over £200 - still tough I grant you that, but gives most more options than if everyone was on £100 pw.

Maybe young snipper-whaffers will have to be nice to their parents...too late for us. lol

The two I know are on £120 (mechanic) and £150 (plumber) a week. I'm not doubting they are on the lower pay scale though!

As a private renter, I'm just thrilled to be subsidising some of the most securely-housed people in the country to buy their own home, thus making the private rental sector even worse.

Feels like our "hard working family" is really being represented.

Your bias is showing.

My bias? You mean my bias against an even further erosion of workers rights in a country which desperately needs more and stronger rights, rather than fewer? You're right. I'm not neutral on this subject.

Perhaps you're making up a straw man?

No I am not. I am pointing out that in many European countries there is a statutory dispute resolution procedure that unions must use before they can strike.

I'm pointing out that overall the UK already has some of the strongest anti-union laws in europe, and industrial action is at an all-time low.

Do you think unions go on strike 'as a first resort'

No but they don't always use it as the last resort. I have seen a number of strikes in this country that would fail the test used in other countries.

Yeah, that's probably something you read in the Daily Mail. I doubt in all the most exceptional cases, union members strike as a last resort.

In what sense is even more anti-union, anti-strike legislation needed

So you think that even if only 1% of the workforce vote, if a majority of them vote in favour of a strike there should be a strike?

a) You didn't answer the question. Why is further anti-union legislation needed when we already have amongst the strongest anti-union laws in europe and industrial action is at an all-time low?

b) It is unlikely that union members would agree to strike action on 1% of the vote.

c) Do you think MPs should be elected by a small minority of the voting public? If so, why should industrial action be different?

The Tories are against unions in principle

Some Tories are but most acknowledge they can do a good job and are in favour of keeping them.

Yeah, sure. It's not like the Tories have historically been anti trade-union and have sought to repeatedly erode workers rights or anything.

the Tory scum wish to withdraw completely from the EHCR

Some have suggested that may be the only way to stop the European Court (which has become pretty activist and is making laws, sometimes very badly, rather than simply interpreting them) making its rulings binding in the UK. However, the basics of the Convention are widely supported within the Conservative party.

Yeah, yeah, 'activist'. 'Activist' is the name of a person or organisation which seeks to overturn legislation which violates human rights. The problem is that many people in government seem to think they are above these petty 'human rights'.

There is no way a Tory government would bring in a bill which protects fundamental human rights while at the same time passing other legislation which violates them

It was a Conservative government that signed us up to the Convention in the first place.

Yeah, immediately after WWII. Quite a different time. Drafted in part by trade unionist Bevin.

Shame the Tories have shown such contempt for the ECHR and Human Rights Act in recent decades.

I'm pointing out that overall the UK already has some of the strongest anti-union laws in europe, and industrial action is at an all-time low

Neither statement is true, although I admit that the second is close to true. The all time low was in 2005. The number of days lost due to strikes has nearly tripled since then but it is still at a low level historically.

The first statement is one often made by unions but simply isn't true. The UK's anti-strike laws are among the toughest of European advanced industrial nations but they are not the toughest in Europe. And since you are talking about anti-union laws, the UK is nowhere near the toughest in Europe.

Yeah, that's probably something you read in the Daily Mail. I doubt in all the most exceptional cases, union members strike as a last resort.

No it isn't something I read in the Daily Mail. It is something I know from personal experience. I personally know of strikes that have taken place which would have failed the "last resort" test used in some European countries. It may not happen very often but it does happen.

It is unlikely that union members would agree to strike action on 1% of the vote

I was exaggerating but under the law as it stands it could happen. Strikes have happened with very low turnout. This legislation was, in large part, prompted by the Tube strike where less than one third of union members voted for the strike.

There are reasons why I think industrial action should be different to electing an MP but I am not going to write an essay here. Briefly, when you vote (or not) in a general election the outcome of the election affects predominantly those who were entitled to vote. If you don't vote and don't like the result that is your own hard luck. When you vote for a strike, particularly in the public services, you are voting to seriously disrupt the lives of people who weren't even entitled to vote. It is therefore, in my view, not unreasonable to impose a minimum threshold that must be passed before a strike is called. However, I accept that there are valid arguments against this and I don't feel strongly about the subject. By the way, some European countries, predominantly in Eastern Europe, impose much higher thresholds than the one planned by the government.

It's not like the Tories have historically been anti trade-union

From 1950 to 1964 the party was very pro trade unions. They then gradually became of the view (shared by some in the Labour party) that the unions had become overly powerful and sought to rebalance the situation, in part copying proposals originally made but not enacted by the Labour government under Wilson.

'Activist' is the name of a person or organisation which seeks to overturn legislation which violates human rights

No idea where you get that from. I was referring to the ECHR as an activist court. It has gone well beyond enforcing the Convention. Some of its judgements are a complete nonsense due to a failure to think things through, e.g. a judgement which can, in some circumstances, lead to a woman being paid more in maternity pay than she would have received if she had continued working. And in some areas the Court is enforcing "rights" that the original drafters of the Convention specifically ruled out. For example, the wording of the Convention was carefully chosen to avoid giving prisoners the right to vote but the ECHR now wishes to force governments to decide which prisoners should be allowed to vote and has made it clear that "none of them" is not an acceptable answer. Personally I think there are some categories of prisoner who should be allowed to vote but the ECHR is going well beyond its remit in forcing the issue.

Drafted in part by trade unionist Bevin

And opposed Labour Cabinet Secretary Herbert Morrison ("I have always been against this Convention - all of it. Humbug") and Labour Attorney General Sir Hartley Shawcross who thought there was a "danger that a Conservative government might accept the jurisdiction of the Court". As indeed the next Conservative government did.

Demonising the Tories is not the way for Labour to win the next election. Indeed, demonising the Tories has led, indirectly, to Labour being wiped out in Scotland. In my view both parties are right about some things and wrong about others. What each party is right about changes over time.

Which rights are covered by the ECHR are not also covered by the various human rights treaties of the UN that the UK is a signatory too?

Neither statement is true, although I admit that the second is close to true. The all time low was in 2005. The number of days lost due to strikes has nearly tripled since then but it is still at a low level historically.

I was thinking on the scale of decades, not years.

You mean tripled from, 3 days to 9? :P There is no big threat of large industrial action in the UK. If there has been a recent strike increase, it's because working conditions have become unbearable under five years of austerity.

The first statement is one often made by unions but simply isn't true. The UK's anti-strike laws are among the toughest of European advanced industrial nations but they are not the toughest in Europe.

OK, fair enough.

No it isn't something I read in the Daily Mail. It is something I know from personal experience. I personally know of strikes that have taken place which would have failed the "last resort" test used in some European countries. It may not happen very often but it does happen.

Whatever. Anecdotal stories of rare occurrences do not provide evidence for policy making, especially when the law in question would effectively render the right to strike almost impossible.

From 1950 to 1964 the party was very pro trade unions. They then gradually became of the view (shared by some in the Labour party) that the unions had become overly powerful and sought to rebalance the situation, in part copying proposals originally made but not enacted by the Labour government under Wilson.

During the post war period there was a 'political consensus' amongst the public (not the elite) that society should be shaped on progressive principles and the poorest and vulnerable should be protected for. The Tories (as a party, which as traditionally been the party of the landed gentry) had no choice but to accept the new consensus or face oblivion.

And opposed Labour Cabinet Secretary Herbert Morrison ("I have always been against this Convention - all of it. Humbug") and Labour Attorney General Sir Hartley Shawcross who thought there was a "danger that a Conservative government might accept the jurisdiction of the Court". As indeed the next Conservative government did.

I really don't care about the Labour party. They ceased to be the party for working people a long time ago.

Demonising the Tories is not the way for Labour to win the next election.

Who cares? Tell it to the Labour party. I'm 'demonising' the Tories because they are psychopaths, not because I wan't Labour to win.

Indeed, demonising the Tories has led, indirectly, to Labour being wiped out in Scotland.

No, not really. Labour were wiped out in Scotland because Labour are shit and the SNP are much more progressive party.

In my view both parties are right about some things and wrong about others. What each party is right about changes over time.

Yes, I'm sure you support the Labour party when they are almost as right-wing and reactionary as the Tories. Look at you being all 'impartial' and all...

So, there is no need for even stronger anti-strike laws in the UK, given that:

a) Strike action is already at and all time low (in the scale of decades, and tiny anyway)

b) Striking is a legal and moral right

c) Anti-strike laws in the UK are already amongst the toughest in europe.

d) MPs are sometimes elected on even smaller ballots than ballots for strike actions, and it is therefore hypocritical and wrong to hold the two to different standards.

e) UK workers rights, in fact, need strengthening, not weakening.

I just find the sodding Queen has a nerve delivering speeches supporting government austerity measures whilst at the same time she can't/won't control her own bloody finances.

The Monarchy shouldn't even exist in the 18th Century, let alone with 21st.

Yes comrade, as that worked so well in Russia.

Even the most ignorant monarch for several hundreds years wouldn't have called trying to get a £157 billion (2010) annual government overspend "austerity"; the serfs without understand how a Groat credit card works, might have tho.

You mean tripled from, 3 days to 9

I mean tripled for 150,000 days lost to 450,000. Much lower than it was in the 1970s and early 1980s.

I really don't care about the Labour party. They ceased to be the party for working people a long time ago.

If you want a left of centre government they are the only realistic option available. I agree they have lost touch with the working class and have become dominated by a left-liberal metropolitan elite. To regain power they need to represent the working class again.

Whoever you vote for or support, calling the Tories psychopaths is ridiculous.

Worked pretty well in France and the U.S.A though. I believe it could have worked well enough here too had Oliver Cromwell lived longer.

They ceased to be the party for working people a long time ago.

I agree entirely with you there prh47. I disagree though that there is no alternative to 'Conservative Party Mark 2'. There's the TUSC for one.