A Death By Eight Million Cuts

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

Interesting discussion.


So, how much does it cost, do you think, to really have a sway over a party? These are big sums of money for an ordinary person, but they aren't actually all THAT big in the grand scheme of things.

Well the Trade Unions have spent about £10,000,000 a year of their members' money on the Labour Party and have got some pretty funky stuff in return down the years (a third of the votes in the leadership election until recently for example).

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

Sure you can. But it's hard enough to get members to blinkin' vote, let alone raise a motion at conference. For example, turnout in Unite ballots to appoint the General Secretary has been just north of 15%.

Besides, couldn't you just get members who've signed up to the levy to tick a box labelled Labour, or UKIP, or whatever? It's their money after all. Seems straightforward to me.:)

If democracy is the issue...... the govmt could allow people the chance of online voting in the Bill.....the numbers participating in ballots may then increase?
Presumably members of unions who sign up to the political levy are doing so to protect their employment rights......the party who would do this for them is the Labour Party.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

If democracy is the issue...... the govmt chose could allow people the chance of online voting in the Bill.....the numbers participating in ballots may then increase?
Presumably members of unions who sign up to the political levy are doing so to protect their employment rights......the party who would do this for them is the Labour Party.

Not necessarily. The Labour Party has quite a history of putting the rights of the unions ahead of the rights of the worker.

Look at the Trade Union laws before Maggie took the sickle to them: how were the closed shop and One Out, All Out good for workers?

Moby

Generali wrote: »

Not necessarily. The Labour Party has quite a history of putting the rights of the unions ahead of the rights of the worker.

They are one and the same imo. This is based on the experiences of my father and grandfather who were miners in Wales. I'm currently a member of a union which seeks to protect members interests/terms/conditions of service in such areas as maternity/paternity leave, sickness absence policy, salary progression, discrimination, bullying etc. My union is not party affiliated but if I asked a worker colleague which party most closely represented their values/interests I could predict their answer.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

They are one and the same imo. This is based on the experiences of my father and grandfather who were miners in Wales. I'm currently a member of a union which seeks to protect members interests/terms/conditions of service in such areas as maternity/paternity leave, sickness absence policy, salary progression, discrimination, bullying etc. My union is not party affiliated but if I asked a worker colleague which party most closely represented their values/interests I could predict their answer.

sounds about right
a minority party only interested in the past

obviously your co-workers don't represent the majority of voters otherwise Labour would be in power now.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

sounds about right
a minority party only interested in the past

obviously your co-workers don't represent the majority of voters otherwise Labour would be in power now.

Typical response from you....you fail to engage with the substance of the post by just having a pop.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

They are one and the same imo. This is based on the experiences of my father and grandfather who were miners in Wales. I'm currently a member of a union which seeks to protect members interests/terms/conditions of service in such areas as maternity/paternity leave, sickness absence policy, salary progression, discrimination, bullying etc. My union is not party affiliated but if I asked a worker colleague which party most closely represented their values/interests I could predict their answer.

Do you honestly believe that the combination of One Out, All Out rules and the Closed Shop was in the interest of the workers?

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

If democracy is the issue...... the govmt could allow people the chance of online voting in the Bill.....the numbers participating in ballots may then increase?...

I have no idea whether or not democracy is the issue for the government. I was only flying a kite.:)

Moby wrote: »

...Presumably members of unions who sign up to the political levy are doing so to protect their employment rights......the party who would do this for them is the Labour Party.

There you go then. So presumably it won't make any difference whether or not they are required to opt in or opt out of the levy.

ruggedtoast

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.

This move isn't even particularly popular with many Conservative MPs. Mainly because they are worried its going to make them look even more underhanded than they already do.

The Tories are already bankrolled by, or actually are, some of the wealthiest people in the world. This is hardly the case for Labour, or indeed the vast majority of people who live in this unequal country.

It also beggars the question that why on earth are you in a Trade Union if you don't want to support the Labour Party? Without Labour there wouldn't be any unions, or in fact any workers rights at all.

While we are on the subject of political unfairness and Tory supporters how about the Tories do the decent thing and stop accepting donations from Media Moguls.

Every single major newspaper in the UK is now owned by Tory donors apart from the Guardian. Perhaps, in the week that the story broke that the British find their news to be the most right wing in Europe, it should be time to state that you can either be a propaganda arm for the government, or a government donor, but not both.

No wonder social media is scaring the bejesus out of them.

antrobus

princeofpounds wrote: »

....So, how much does it cost, do you think, to really have a sway over a party? These are big sums of money for an ordinary person, but they aren't actually all THAT big in the grand scheme of things.

Quite a lot I imagine. Michael Ashcroft gave a lot of money to the Cons, but failed to get what he wanted.

But then I have always thought there was something to be said for the Lloyd George Model of party financing; flog some hereditary peerages to the rich. That way at least they get something for their money and are less likely to come knocking asking for favours afterwards.