A Death By Eight Million Cuts

Rich2808

I thought this would be a serious thread about austerity.

What about the nearly 200,000 frail elderly people in England - many who have disabilities or are terminally ill - have lost access to local authority home helps and social care support since 2010. Out of sight and out of mind - until it affects your parents or grandparents.

Who cares about cuts to the Labour party.

Generali

Rich2808 wrote: »

I thought this would be a serious thread about austerity.

What about the nearly 200,000 frail elderly people in England - many who have disabilities or are terminally ill - have lost access to local authority home helps and social care support since 2010. Out of sight and out of mind - until it affects your parents or grandparents.

Who cares about cuts to the Labour party.

Hi Rich2808.

Why don't you start a thread about it where we can discuss it?

CLAPTON

Rich2808 wrote: »

I thought this would be a serious thread about austerity.

What about the nearly 200,000 frail elderly people in England - many who have disabilities or are terminally ill - have lost access to local authority home helps and social care support since 2010. Out of sight and out of mind - until it affects your parents or grandparents.

Who cares about cuts to the Labour party.

this thread is a serious thread about trade union legislation and TU support for labour

tincans6

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.

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.

Never really sure if your posts are tongue in cheek or a reflection of some deranged obsession with unions and the Labour party.

The main Trade Union acts for the majority of the 20th Century either pre date the Labour party (Trade Union Act 1871) or were passed when the Labour party was 6 years old and had a total of 29 MP's (the 1906 Act).

antrobus

tincans6 wrote: »

Never really sure if your posts are tongue in cheek or a reflection of some deranged obsession with unions and the Labour party.

The main Trade Union acts for the majority of the 20th Century either pre date the Labour party (Trade Union Act 1871) or were passed when the Labour party was 6 years old and had a total of 29 MP's (the 1906 Act).

This thread is not about the legality of trade unions, it is about political funding by trade unions. Political funding by trade unions only became an issue when they decided in 1900 to establish a Labour Representation Commitee to specifically increase the number of union sponsored MPs returned to parliament, and even more of an issue when those MPs duly returned in 1906 decided to become the Labour Party.

It's always been about the Labour Party. It's not an obsession, it's a matter of historical record.

Generali

tincans6 wrote: »

Never really sure if your posts are tongue in cheek or a reflection of some deranged obsession with unions and the Labour party.

The main Trade Union acts for the majority of the 20th Century either pre date the Labour party (Trade Union Act 1871) or were passed when the Labour party was 6 years old and had a total of 29 MP's (the 1906 Act).

A bit of both quite honestly. Never take my posts too seriously unless I mean them seriously.

If I mean them seriously then obviously you should take them seriously.

**Sigh**

Let me rethink.....

Soooo..if I write something serious about a trade union and you think what you think about trade unions is important then don't take me seriously, otherwise disagree.

If I write something about Scottish Nationalism then you should probably just disagree with me. Unless you're a Unionist in which case disagree with those that disagree with me.

Oh (och?) I don't know. I'm going to see the cancer doctor tomorrow and TBH there is a whole bucket full of stuff going on in the world that is far more important that what we discuss here. Why don't we just enjoy having won the world's lottery?

How great is the world we live in?

I got cancer and I......get this.....lived. And will continue to live.

I lost my job a few years back and could clothe and feed my family. They could even get their teeth fixed!

We are insanely rich in OECD countries, it's nuts. If we spend a few hours understanding what the bottom billion people live from and how they cope then we could all learn some humility.

Sky Sports isn't a right. If you are in the bottom half billion earners in the world, paracetamol is a luxury.