They may or may not. The big mistake a lot of people make is equating fiat currencies with the wealth of the nation. The link is at best tenuous. 90% of the debt in existence could probably be concertinaed without catastrophic consequences.

---

Why are you bothered? You live in Australia in one of its wealthiest cities and clearly identify as a Perthite. I have little time for the opinions of ex-pats whether they be right or left, in fact I find it odd how so many people I know who have moved to Australia and seem more than happy to live under Abbot, spend so much time exclaiming what a disaster the UK GE was! 

On the issue of ex-pats has Paul O'Grady made good his promise to feck off Venice if the Tories won?

I see the Tory govt is already showing the effect of not having the moderating effect of the Lib Dems. The scandalous rewriting of strike laws, making the requirements for calling a strike tougher than those for winning a general election, is going ahead. More siding with employers over the workers.

---

So much for Farage being a man of his word: he's staying as leader and is looking to contest a by-election in a Labour area. LOL

---

I wonder how PMQs are going to play out now?

Until the LibDems went into government, they asked two questions a week to the PM, now that won't happen anymore because the SNP by number should have the right for two questions to the PM.

Difficult days ahead for the LibDems in parliament.

Also select committees, are we going to have a SNP member in every select committee?

---

It is largely the fault of the RMT - they have called strikes on many a petty pretext, with sometimes less than 20% of the membership being sufficient. To be honest, it may have been better to negotiate a no-strike deal with unions like the RMT, than to do what is proposed, but I guess the RMT leadership would never agree to that.

Strikes are the wrong solution - but if sufficient union members feel aggrieved about something, then they should be able to breach the 40% threshold.

---

Good news for the housing market and landlords. I've just been sent this from an estate agent:

For several weeks leading up to the 2015 general election houses didn't seem as safe as they might be.  Across the country, house buying and selling activity stalled as people awaited the result.  So the announcement that there would be a winner with a clear, if perhaps only slender, majority was met by those in the housing industry with a collective sigh of relief.

It wasn't necessarily the political stripe of the party that won, but the fact there was at least a clear result and the property market would not be left in limbo during weeks and possibly months of political horse-trading and in-fighting.

Also, there will be an acknowledgement that the threat of mansion tax has gone.  This was a significant concern towards the upper end of the market.  Another worry was the threat of rent control.  This would potentially have affected the buy-to-let market dramatically.

So there is a mandate from the electorate.  The city has responded favourably.  The pound is up; shares in major house building firms are up and at least 37% of the population feel a little more confident about the immediate future - buoyed by a trend of improving trade, employment and cost of living figures.

My view
Home counties pub time conversation can now return to 'how much has your house appreciated in value this week'. 

---

I don't think there's anything unreasonable in preventing strike action where fewer than 50% of those eligible to vote actually do so. The situation on the Tube under the 'late, great' Bob Crow was absolutely intolerable. 

---

You mean aside from the fact it sets a higher standard of approval than any other balloting system one can think of in the UK, including referenda, general elections, local elections, European elections, etc., etc., etc.?

---

 

Yes, I do think so, Nick. The effect of strikes by staff in public sector areas upon which millions of people depend to go to work can be enormous. Those on contracts and the self-employed are affected particularly badly by action on public transport - quite simply, they lose money while those in employment (including those taking the action) continue to be paid even if they don't turn up at work.

I went out on strike a few times earlier on in my career - each time we were muscled into it by representatives from NUJ head office and the votes of a few hardliners in the chapel. Each time, the turnout was less than 40% and yet I still had to walk out or face sanction from the union. In the end, I walked away from the NUJ because it was clearly being run for political purposes, not for the defence of its members' interests.

---

My wife works in the higher education sector and she was telling me there is a lot of optimism (despite most of them being lefties) about the appointment of Jo Johnson. By all accounts this guy is a Bilderberger extraordinaire who makes his brother de Pfeffel look like a nationalist. The expectation is he will make it easier for foreign students to 'study' in Britain.

---

Funny you should say that. The boys ware talking about this last night in the pub. Its like we have gone back in time to the 80s again. A divided nation.

I think there will be some real trouble ahead now that the spivs can do what they like and push forward their Thatcherite agenda. At least Clegg kept them under control

---

In the wrong way!

Now we can sort out immigration, asylum and the boat people in a way which looks after the people of this nation:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32716735

 

---

As far as was reported, his offer to resign was rejected by the rest of the UKIP membership. Is it still possible for someone to walk away from a job if their employer refuses to accept their resignation?

I can well understand why they didn't accept it though, because as I said in the other thread, UKIP are a much diminished force without Farage at the helm. He is UKIP just now as much as Alex Salmond was the SNP up until last year.

---

I think you've contradicted your own argument splendidly.  Look at how successful the SNP have been since Sturgeon took over. By clinging on to Farage UKIP look like a set of clowns as well as a reactionary force stuck in the past and afraid to embrace change. The Tories must be wetting themselves with laughter over his decision. It gets even better though because he'll still be effective in peeling off some of the white working class votes Labour needs in northern England. I'm guessing he's on the Bilderberg pay roll now. 

---

That's true, Brian.

I didn't mean to suggest that the SNP have in any way declined as a political force since Salmond stood down as leader after the Indy referendum; if anything they have gained in strength considerably since Nicola Sturgeon replaced Salmond as Scotland's First Minister. What I would say though is that she inherited a party that was very much on the up for a while under Salmond's leadership. Although they didn't get the Yes vote they desperately craved in the Indy ref, they won the last two Scottish Parliament elections and won the last one in 2011 convincingly. There is no doubt in my mind that Alex Salmond's leadership of the SNP over 20 years has been an enormous influence on Sturgeon and is huge part of the reason that she is now enjoying success. Most, if not all, of the skills and knowledge that Sturgoen now has will have been learned from her old master.

As for UKIP, hasn't Farage been their leader ever since the party was formed? If so, that would further explain IMO why they seem desperate to hold on to him.

---

'Recalibration' is such a fine word. It's going to come into common usage over the next five years - not least because it sounds so much better than clampdown.

Despite the implied cynicsim of your use of scare quotes, an openness to foreign students - and there are many who wish to come here - is vital to the sector and the country.

As for optimism... I'm afraid until they get rid of the cancerous 'impact agenda', I will not be cheering up any time soon.

---

I think my issue with the intended voting threshold on union ballots is that it subverts the meaning of abstention as understood by convention. To me, abstention means to silently agree to the will of the other voters, and cannot think of another democratic process where that does not apply.

The specific 40% threshold only applies to transport workers. Essential workers have always had limits put on their right to strike.

The general threshold is only that there has to be at least a 50% turnout, which does not seem too onerous to me.

---

How does that address Edicus's point?

---

 

It doesn't at all.

 

Also worth noting that, certainly in recent years, the main reason for industrial action has been to fight attempts by employers to impose changes (regressions) to employee T&C's.

I can think of no other area where one party to a contract has arbitrary right to change the contract in their favour, whilst the other has no such right.

 

---

Abstention does not indicate acquiescence of course, but apathy. The 50% turnout threshold is not a particularly onerous one, when people are being asked ot participate in strike action.

The restrictions on transport workers are tougher, but that is because of the RMT screwing up other peoples' lives with unnecessary action.

 

---

...and we're back to the question of why the standards for such ballots should be higher than for those where the entire future of the country including matters of life and death and national defence is being decided.

---

For which the only honest answer seems to be 'I'm not in favour of trade unions'. I am actually not entirely against the priniciple of a threshold for electoral support (hence my backing of AV back in the day), however I would wish it to be applied equally to all elections, effectively redefining the meaning of abstention. What's sauce for the goose and all that.