Did You Vote Today?

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You'll have to explain the above in language I can understand...

If someone with extreme views gets elected than they cannot represent the majority - because if they did represent the majority then the views wouldn't be considered extreme. If those supporting extreme views are motivated to vote, then apathy among the majority risks getting elected those holding the extreme views. That is why I think it important to vote.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Chris, you're in a hole - please stop digging. I am so angry not just that I know this goes on but that you feel so little concern about it that you're happy to come on here and boast about it.

Whilst I'm fully on your side with this argument, the one thing I would say for Chris is that to me, it doesn't seem like he is "boasting" about it. He has put forward his opinion, which is directly relevant to some of the political parties polices. He has so far been quite good about answering the replies genuinely and politely, which seems quite rare for an internet debate!

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

If someone with extreme views gets elected than they cannot represent the majority - because if they did represent the majority then the views wouldn't be considered extreme. If those supporting extreme views are motivated to vote, then apathy among the majority risks getting elected those holding the extreme views. That is why I think it important to vote.

If only more of the population realised this.

 

[Hobbit]

If someone with extreme views gets elected than they cannot represent the majority - because if they did represent the majority then the views wouldn't be considered extreme. If those supporting extreme views are motivated to vote, then apathy among the majority risks getting elected those holding the extreme views. That is why I think it important to vote.

But what are the views of the apathetic that didn't vote? And how does someone with extreme views get elected?

I appreciate that in a 3 horse race, 1 could poll 40%, and the other 2 could get 30%. They may not get a majority of the votes available but they have the most support.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If only more of the population realised this.

And so even although I voted for a 'mainstream' candidate with not a cats chance in hell of winning I voted according to my beliefs and to reduce (albeit only by a tiny amount) the % of the vote that the UKIP candidate got.

 

[Hobbit]

If only more of the population realised this.

Or if the major parties better reflected what a majority want.

 

[SaintHacker]

It's so easy to be an idealist when your not trying to run a business and keep 5 or 6 families in employment

And here is the crux of the matter. How many of you people jumping on the sexism bandwagon run your own company with peoples livelihoods at stake? It may not be the most desirable situation, but its reality. Chris has to do what is right for his business and his employees. If the risk of taking on the wrong person is such that it could cause the business to fail then he doesn't really have a choice!

 

[chrisd]

For the record I do agree with you 100% Karen.. but do you think its not the truth ?

Chris where i agree its wrong i do see your point and i say fair play for saying it , its easy to NOT say it and tip along in a comfy conversation . so being honest is respected

To be fair Blade I agree with everyone who says that any discrimination in the workplace, or anywhere else, is wrong and when the government legislate that, not employing someone solely on the grounds of race, colour, sex etc is wrong, both morally and legally I'm 100% with that.

The problem really is that the government of the day has bought in so much legislation that makes life for the micro business so hard is that it invariably adds to overhead costs, but adds nothing by way of extra revenue, thus forcing decisions that will keep those costs down often for survival. I have never been in a position to employ a female and therefore haven't ever put in to practice this view but I know that many many employers do actively do so and the reports are about 25% of employers do

Morally I know Karen is right but I doubt (but don't know) whether Karen has been responsible for ensuring something like 20 different families over 25 years have relied on her business to make a profit and to be able to help pay their mortgages, food bills and their kids clothes etc and having fought through two major recessions in a very competitive world. I don't expect thanks for that but am proud to have achieved it - sadly I haven't come out wealthy at the other end! I do, however, object to her labelling me as "odious" just for stating a position that I feel economics pushed me to do and not choice.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

But what are the views of the apathetic that didn't vote? And how does someone with extreme views get elected?

I appreciate that in a 3 horse race, 1 could poll 40%, and the other 2 could get 30%. They may not get a majority of the votes available but they have the most support.

I'm reading it as SILH looking at the basis of the word "extreme". If 60% of the population don't believe it, then it could be considered "extreme". If 60% of the population do believe it, then it cannot be extreme, as it's actually the majority view.


I think.

 

[CMAC]

And here is the crux of the matter. How many of you people jumping on the sexism bandwagon run your own company with peoples livelihoods at stake? It may not be the most desirable situation, but its reality. Chris has to do what is right for his business and his employees. If the risk of taking on the wrong person is such that it could cause the business to fail then he doesn't really have a choice!

you're missing the point and the facts! Chris knows it only costs him 8% of that persons salary yet you and he allude to the fact the business could go under! Yet Chris also states he paid an employee 14 weeks full pay when off sick (very admirable and right imo) think you'll find that equates to far more than 8% and couldn't be planned for, with pregnancies you have time to plan and make contingencies, something any good business does on a weekly/monthly basis.

Not running your own company doesn't make peoples opinion and knowledge less important or relevant

 

[Doon frae Troon]

And so even although I voted for a 'mainstream' candidate with not a cats chance in hell of winning I voted according to my beliefs and to reduce (albeit only by a tiny amount) the % of the vote that the UKIP candidate got.

Goodness UKIP candidates elected in Farnham in leafy Surrey.
Looks like I will have to vote for Scottish independence now!

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Goodness UKIP candidates elected in Farnham in leafy Surrey.
Looks like I will have to vote for Scottish independence now!

If UKIP do get in power, somehow, have you got any extra room up in Scotland? I can try and bring the sun with me....

 

[chrisd]

you're missing the point and the facts! Chris knows it only costs him 8% of that persons salary yet you and he allude to the fact the business could go under! Yet Chris also states he paid an employee 14 weeks full pay when off sick (very admirable and right imo) think you'll find that equates to far more than 8%.

Not running your own company doesn't make peoples opinion and knowledge less important or relevant

It does when the don't read all the facts as you've totally ignored the cost of recruiting and training of someone to cover the person on maternity leave.

I paid all my staff full sick pay as I valued them, the 14 weeks was just the longest, but it was a budgeted cost that I provided for.

 

[Hacker Khan]

You are coming across as a blinkered left wing activist. You use the traditional socialist method of throwing insults rather than debate and reason.

You have a daughter? How about the debate being 'Can you go tell her that no matter how much hard work and effort she puts into bettering herself, she may well not get employed purely because of her sex and and because there is a chance she will have a baby'? And if that's a socialist left wing activist argument instead of a morally right argument in anyone's world then so be it.

I am sure that there are lots of red tape and legislation that is putting a burden on businesses and that some of it should go. But lumping what I would call a basic human right of a person to be chosen on their ability rather than their sex together with other legislation is in my opinion morally and legally wrong. I will state again many many very successful business employ women.

 

[chrisd]

Interesting that Chris employs mature men but not mature women. Tends to weaken his argument.

I have stated that no women have ever applied for any vacancy mature or otherwise at any time

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Goodness UKIP candidates elected in Farnham in leafy Surrey.
Looks like I will have to vote for Scottish independence now!

I don't think so - South-West Surrey is a Tory redoubt with Virginia Bottomley MP and now Jeremy Hunt. Lib-Dems pushed Tories close for two gen elections before last. But I've seen and heard quite a bit of UKIP activity hereabouts recently (the UKIP public meetings in our church hall were very well supported) so it wouldn't surprise me if they did pretty well yesterday.

 

[Snelly]

I think there are some really poor comments directed at Chris on this thread.

I employ 15 staff, both men and women and I understand entirely where he is coming from.

To clarify, I tend to positively discriminate and look to bring women in to roles when I can as my view is that women think and work differently to men and often give me a fresh perspective on issues and strategies. Ideally, I want as close to a 50/50 balance between men and women in the company as I can realistically get to.

That said, if a female candidate came for a job with us and was 29, been married 2 years and just bought a new house and had not got children, then I am afraid to say that the high chance of her starting a family imminently would be a factor that I would privately consider. It may be sexist, it may be illiberal and it may be flouting employment legislation. However, it is also basic common sense for any small business and furthermore, my (female) HR consultant also regularly raises this as a possible red flag when it fits the circumstances.

I appreciate that it isn't what the liberal left of the forum want to hear but hard lines. Your protestations just illustrate that you can't see the other side of the argument.

As ever, that is the trouble with liberals - they are only liberal if you agree entirely with their views and if you don't, you are a fascist pig and a disgusting human being.

And lastly, returning to the original question - no I did not vote. Just like 65% of the apathetic population. Two reasons - I have very little faith in our political system and the free-loading clowns within it plus, where I live, the Tories have a majority of 24000 and there is no candidate from any left of centre party so it is a done deal anyway.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I paid all my staff full sick pay as I valued them, the 14 weeks was just the longest, but it was a budgeted cost that I provided for.

..and that seems to me a heck of a commitment to your employees as I am sure that you didn't have to.

 

[FairwayDodger]

To be fair Blade I agree with everyone who says that any discrimination in the workplace, or anywhere else, is wrong and when the government legislate that, not employing someone solely on the grounds of race, colour, sex etc is wrong, both morally and legally I'm 100% with that.

The problem really is that the government of the day has bought in so much legislation that makes life for the micro business so hard is that it invariably adds to overhead costs, but adds nothing by way of extra revenue, thus forcing decisions that will keep those costs down often for survival. I have never been in a position to employ a female and therefore haven't ever put in to practice this view but I know that many many employers do actively do so and the reports are about 25% of employers do

Morally I know Karen is right but I doubt (but don't know) whether Karen has been responsible for ensuring something like 20 different families over 25 years have relied on her business to make a profit and to be able to help pay their mortgages, food bills and their kids clothes etc and having fought through two major recessions in a very competitive world. I don't expect thanks for that but am proud to have achieved it - sadly I haven't come out wealthy at the other end! I do, however, object to her labelling me as "odious" just for stating a position that I feel economics pushed me to do and not choice.

So, if I read this rightly, you agree such discrimination is wrong but you would practice it; adding hypocrisy into the mix.

No, I've never employed anyone but I have needed to find work to support myself. I've applied for jobs where I ticked every box in the description but didn't even get invited to interview and you're left wondering why, whether you've been discriminated against.

Frankly, if 25% of employers are still getting away with this we need more, stronger legislation to crack down on unscrupulous businesses, not less!

No apologies for using the word "odious", that's my opinion on the subject.

 

[Papas1982]

It is exactly the same thing. Yes, you need to evaluate the suitability of each candidate but certain criteria are not relevant and cannot legally be used to discriminate; race, religion, sexuality and gender.

Chris, you're in a hole - please stop digging. I am so angry not just that I know this goes on but that you feel so little concern about it that you're happy to come on here and boast about it.

This goes on EVERYWHERE! My sister in law is a head teacher and has openly admitted that the school have an ideal ratio for male to female teachers. So they will generally employ a candidate based on sex as long as they appear adequate.

And nd it happens both ways, just because he's being honest doesn't make him a sexist biggot. He hasn't said that male candidates are better or that women aren't up to task, just that he needs a more constant regular employee. As for bringing race or religion into it. That's just trying too hard to make him look bad.