A Death By Eight Million Cuts

Generali

The Trade Union Act proposes that union subs shouldn't automatically subsidise the Labour Party any longer. According to the very excellent Labour List website, insiders think that this is likely to lead to a reduction in Labour Party funding by £8,000,000 a year.

http://labourlist.org/2016/02/labour-now-expect-to-take-8-million-funding-hit-from-trade-union-bill/

This seems likely to lead to a level playing field between Labour and Conservative Party funding:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28542408

Given that the built-in advantage for Labour from Trade Union funding is going to end and the Gerrymandering of seats is likely to go in the boundary review, all that needs to happen now is for the Government to stop Labour patriarchs taking votes from women and at last the UK will have a functional democracy.

Mistermeaner

And labour will be forever consigned to the wilderness?

anchovypizza

Mistermeaner wrote: »

And labour will be forever consigned to the wilderness?

If ever there was a time for a government to do something radical it is without doubt now, Labour will not get back in power for at least 10 years, I personally think longer.

And yet David Cameron is playing politics when there is no need to now play politics. Whatever his vision is, and I have no idea what that is, he has a better chance than most to succeed.

I just feel sad that David Davis MP was not picked as Tory Leader, he was a tough love conservative with principles who would have looked after the low/middle paid conservative workers, and not just the rich ones like Cameron.

Mistermeaner

Maybe cameron is a middle of the road politician pursuing his vision of moderqte centralist policies?

How is Dave looking after his rich pals?

Thrugelmir

Mistermeaner wrote: »

And labour will be forever consigned to the wilderness?

Corbyn is taking them back into the wilderness for another 40 years. Blair at least tried to modernise the party.

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

And labour will be forever consigned to the wilderness?

Well TBH I think they already are.

Mrs Generali was born in 1976 so she has only had one Labour leader form a Government in her lifetime. The Labour party has a series of advantages built in and yet keep on losing.

Mummyisbeauty

Generali wrote: »

Well TBH I think they already are.

Mrs Generali was born in 1976 so she has only had one Labour leader form a Government in her lifetime. The Labour party has a series of advantages built in and yet keep on losing.

I'm a little younger and only known one labour government. Though it was there through most of senior school and through college.

As for loss of funding, finally.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

The Trade Union Act proposes that union subs shouldn't automatically subsidise the Labour Party any longer. According to the very excellent Labour List website, insiders think that this is likely to lead to a reduction in Labour Party funding by £8,000,000 a year.....

Whereas I concede the logic behind the government proposals, it does seem a touch partisan to me.

Generali wrote: »

...This seems likely to lead to a level playing field between Labour and Conservative Party funding:..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28542408

Given that the built-in advantage for Labour from Trade Union funding is going to end

The numbers quoted by the BBC are a bit misleading as they fail to distinguish between private and public money. Basically opposition parties get Short and Cranborne money to fund certain activities in order to counteract the inbuilt advantage that the governing party has in terms of access to the civil service. Which must be worth a few million a year.

It would be more sensible to compare the £30m that the Cons raised in private donations in 2014 compared to Labour's £18.5m

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm

or perhaps the spend at the last GE; Con £15.59m, Lab £12.09m

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-party-spending-at-elections/details-of-party-spending-at-previous-elections

P.S. Hasn't the SPGB done well. They raised more money in 2013 than the Greens. That might help explain why they are the UK's richest political party. On a per capita basis, at least.:)

BobQ

Seems only fair in a democracy for the Government elected by 35% of the electorate who voted to seek to destroy its main opposition and ensure that power is handed to whichever group of rich people that wish to buy it.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Seems only fair in a democracy for the Government elected by 35% of the electorate who voted to seek to destroy its main opposition and ensure that power is handed to whichever group of rich people that wish to buy it.

it would seem to me that all parties seek to destroy the opposition.

the issue is whether the steps being taken are fair and reasonable.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

it would seem to me that all parties seek to destroy the opposition.

the issue is whether the steps being taken are fair and reasonable.

I have never been a member of the Labour Party (apart from the recent registration as a supporter, which will not be renewed), but I have been a member of a trade union in the past that chose not to be affiliated to the Labour Party. But those who choose to contribute to a political fund in a union that chooses to support the Labour Party via union contributions. People can choose not to pay a political levy or to belong to an affiliated union.

The Bill is an act of interference by a party that does not declare its membership figures and is largely funded by donations from a relatively small number of wealthy people and businesses who do not get the approval of its shareholders to do this.

You might call this fair and reasonable, I would call it anti-democratic. If Labour had a more reasonable leader I would join it in protest.

You may see this as some kind of war to destroy an opponent, I but I think it is not in the interests of democracy which is far more important than who wins elections.