A Death By Eight Million Cuts

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure whether it should be mandatory to declare membership numbers
but I thought that donations over a certain limit had to be declared and were in the public domain

Personally I think that donation from trade unions and public companies should be illegal.

westernpromise

anchovypizza wrote: »

I just feel sad that David Davis MP was not picked as Tory Leader, he was a tough love conservative with principles

Apparently he is also lazy beyond belief.

.string.

westernpromise wrote: »

Apparently he is also lazy beyond belief.

A link please.

.... Unless you're to lazy to find one of course.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

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.

AIUI, nobody will be prevented from giving money to the Labour Party, you just need to opt in actively rather than opting out.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

AIUI, nobody will be prevented from giving money to the Labour Party, you just need to opt in actively rather than opting out.

Correct, and it's a change I welcome although making it without further limitations on the ability of businesses to donate seems to be both party politics and unhelpful.

Personally I think it'd better to restrict donations to political parties to individuals only, put a limit of 10% of the average wage on anonymous donations and a limit of the average wage on donations.

antrobus

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.

Why hark back to 2005? That's the only time that I can think of that we had a "Government elected by 35% of the electorate who voted".

markharding557

I think it's fair to allow union members to decide whether they wish to donate or not, a limit on private or union donations would limit the excessive influence a very few individuals have on policy making, this goes on in both Labour and Conservatives.

I am not convinced about the short money cuts being imposed because this may hurt small parties the most, these get a rough deal from the electoral system as it is.

antrobus

markharding557 wrote: »

I think it's fair to allow union members to decide whether they wish to donate or not, ...

They have always had that choice. The argument is about whether you operate under the presumption that they want to donate or they don't. (Opt-out vs Opt-in)

Oddly enough, no one seems to have considered that union members might have the choice over which party gets their money.

markharding557 wrote: »

...a limit on private or union donations would limit the excessive influence a very few individuals have on policy making, this goes on in both Labour and Conservatives.

Yeh, right.:)

They have all sorts of limits for US federal elections. I am not convinced that they have suceeded in limiting anyone's influence.

markharding557 wrote: »

....I am not convinced about the short money cuts being imposed because this may hurt small parties the most, these get a rough deal from the electoral system as it is.

Darned silly if you ask me.

CLAPTON

there seems to be no moral argument that, in the work place, one political party should have an advantage over any other

either there should be no salary deductions for a political party or all parties ought to treated equally

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

Why hark back to 2005? That's the only time that I can think of that we had a "Government elected by 35% of the electorate who voted".

I meant whatever % the Tories received in 2015 which was less than 40%, although it was not something I could be bothered to look up.

But since you mention it, had Blair passed legislation stipulating that limited companies could not donate to a political party without creating a political fund approved by a ballot of individual shareholders would you have considered that fair and reasonable? If he had then given individual shareholders the right to opt out of contributing to the political fund would that have been fair?