In light of the current BA strikes currently taking place, is it a good idea for that union ( UNITE ) to be able to " donate " so much money to the current serving Government?
Surely in a dispute such as this, it is not possibly in the Governments financial interests, to intervene too much as they do not want to be seen to upset their paymasters?
I am fully aware that this is usual practice for unions to give to the Labour party, but should this practice be stopped?
No wonder Brown took an age to say anything about this strike, either of a positive or a negative opinion. He no doubt was well aware how much money this union donates to it's parties funds.
The ammount of money is huge and I believe that money paid into a political party, should be capped at a certain level by either individuals or in this case unions.
How can a Government be in an impartial situation in a strike when that very union donates I think 11 million quid to it's party funds? Surely they will not want to be seen to be siding with the employer in case they upset the union and have their funds stopped?
I thought this was supposed to be " New Labour " a party who gained it's election victory on a party that was not in bed with the unions as much as "Old Labour" was? Seems they are as much in bed now as they were 20 years ago.
How can they possibly be open and fair and completely impartial in this dispute?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Should Labour be funded by the unions?
Sex God
If you follow that line of thinking, should the Conservatives be funded by big business/corporate donors, because wouldn't they then feel obliged to act in the interest of their 'paymasters'?
The problem of impartiality and funding is not partisan.
The problem of impartiality and funding is not partisan.
Quote by noladreams
If you follow that line of thinking, should the Conservatives be funded by big business/corporate donors, because wouldn't they then feel obliged to act in the interest of their 'paymasters'?
The problem of impartiality and funding is not partisan.
Good points Nola.
Maybe the ammounts to which people or big business and unions, should be limited.
I just feel that where a strike like this is concerned, where the union involved pays the most ammount of money to the Labour party, the Government surely cannot be impartial?
Hence why as I have said, Brown was very slow to say anything, until no doubt his advisers told him what to say?
Quote by kentswingers777no, unite should not give anymore money to new labour and serves the silly bastards right for giving them any in the first place.
In light of the current BA strikes currently taking place, is it a good idea for that union ( UNITE ) to be able to " donate " so much money to the current serving Government?
Surely in a dispute such as this, it is not possibly in the Governments financial interests, to intervene too much as they do not want to be seen to upset their paymasters?
I am fully aware that this is usual practice for unions to give to the Labour party, but should this practice be stopped?
No wonder Brown took an age to say anything about this strike, either of a positive or a negative opinion. He no doubt was well aware how much money this union donates to it's parties funds.
The ammount of money is huge and I believe that money paid into a political party, should be capped at a certain level by either individuals or in this case unions.
How can a Government be in an impartial situation in a strike when that very union donates I think 11 million quid to it's party funds? Surely they will not want to be seen to be siding with the employer in case they upset the union and have their funds stopped?
I thought this was supposed to be " New Labour " a party who gained it's election victory on a party that was not in bed with the unions as much as "Old Labour" was? Seems they are as much in bed now as they were 20 years ago.
How can they possibly be open and fair and completely impartial in this dispute?
brown and new labour will turn on unite on behalf of their paymasters in the city with the utmost venom. serves woodley right for going along with "NEW" labour.
There was some talk about political parties being State funded. There is a House of Commons Research Paper
It's done elsewhere such as in France
France is a fine Republican State and one the UK can most closely associate with (even though the UK is not a Republic), so why not have State funding?
I suppose the only downside might be the distaste shown by some factions of society in state funding an organisation such as the NF - but then, they would have to play by State rules to get the funding or be regarded as a bona fide political party so there may be benefits there perhaps?
It's done elsewhere such as in France
France is a fine Republican State and one the UK can most closely associate with (even though the UK is not a Republic), so why not have State funding?
I suppose the only downside might be the distaste shown by some factions of society in state funding an organisation such as the NF - but then, they would have to play by State rules to get the funding or be regarded as a bona fide political party so there may be benefits there perhaps?
Quote by flower411
Must admit ....I`m more interested to know if anybody has any sensible suggestions as to how political parties should be funded, cos picking a single dodgy example seems a pretty pointless exercise.
A very valid point - I think that parties should be largely self financing, in other words members pay an adeqate subscription to make up most of the day to day running costs. Additional funds, in particular at election times or to buy an office building, could be raised by sponsorship, the names of the big business or union or other entities involved being clearly identified.
Plim
Previous conservative governments made it a LEGAL necessity for unions to ask each member whether they wanted to pay the so-called political levy.
Very large majorities of members decided they did want to pay for it. Since they decided anonymously to pay it, there was no pressure involved.
I now note that the next conservative government has committed itself to require EACH union member to have to vote not only for whether they want the union to donate money to the labour party, but how much, and to have to vote every time a donation is to be made.
I do not notice many conservatives requiring each shareholder of each company to do the same.
They also have few morals in accepting money from tax-exiles who do not even live in this country.
Oh....and is that "lady" still in exile in Israel.....still dodging arrest for massive election rigging attempts...and still owing several tens of millions in "fines" ?
Wasn't she conservative as well ?
So: We have Labour, funded by millions of union members.
Or Conservative, funded by non-domicile billionaires and other similar donations.
The problem with Unite is that its leaders obviously do not realise that they have been led down that particular path, by a company that is all-too-obviously Conservative-inclined.
Wiki:
Very large majorities of members decided they did want to pay for it. Since they decided anonymously to pay it, there was no pressure involved.
I now note that the next conservative government has committed itself to require EACH union member to have to vote not only for whether they want the union to donate money to the labour party, but how much, and to have to vote every time a donation is to be made.
I do not notice many conservatives requiring each shareholder of each company to do the same.
They also have few morals in accepting money from tax-exiles who do not even live in this country.
Oh....and is that "lady" still in exile in Israel.....still dodging arrest for massive election rigging attempts...and still owing several tens of millions in "fines" ?
Wasn't she conservative as well ?
So: We have Labour, funded by millions of union members.
Or Conservative, funded by non-domicile billionaires and other similar donations.
The problem with Unite is that its leaders obviously do not realise that they have been led down that particular path, by a company that is all-too-obviously Conservative-inclined.
Wiki:
The company operating profits rebounded but the cost of the write-offs and redundancies meant that net profitability was not as quick to recover. Not all of Walsh's reforms were successful, such as the outsourcing of aircraft cleaning. The contracting had not been agreed with Aer Lingus unions which led to large payments to the private contractor while Aer Lingus employees did the cleaning work. A three-day lockout occurred in 2002 during the peak of the cutbacks.
The management team suggested to the principal shareholder, the Irish Government, a float of Aer Lingus on the stock market. Stock floats are often rewarding to top management and this was opposed by the unions who feared a privatised Aer Lingus would impose even tougher working conditions. The Government eventually turned down the float and this led to Walsh and other management executives resigning from the company in January 2005
Sexlightened
State funding has to be the way forward with this, but to decide how much goes to each party would be the difficult part, the Libdems would love to have an equal amount of funding to the Labour and Conservatives. Maybe proportional to percentage of vote is the answer, but then that means the most successful party of the previous election would always have the most funds for the next.
Sexlightened
Quote by JTS
It's quite simple.
Each party has the same funding.
Irrespective of size.
Strict rules governing use of state funds should apply, and unused money returned to the exchequer.
But then you could have the BNP SNP and Plaid Cymru all expecting to get the same amount of avialable funding and strict rules will have loopholes found.
She tried.
They are now larger than before...many have now amalgamated into large unions from small ones.
You have to bear in mind that ALL the strikes now have to be after a ballot of the membership.
And that the newspapers are not impartial since they themselves are now run by big business.
They are now larger than before...many have now amalgamated into large unions from small ones.
You have to bear in mind that ALL the strikes now have to be after a ballot of the membership.
And that the newspapers are not impartial since they themselves are now run by big business.
Quote by kentswingers777
If you follow that line of thinking, should the Conservatives be funded by big business/corporate donors, because wouldn't they then feel obliged to act in the interest of their 'paymasters'?
The problem of impartiality and funding is not partisan.
Good points Nola.
Maybe the ammounts to which people or big business and unions, should be limited.
I just feel that where a strike like this is concerned, where the union involved pays the most ammount of money to the Labour party, the Government surely cannot be impartial?
Hence why as I have said, Brown was very slow to say anything, until no doubt his advisers told him what to say?
You might want to get someone who understands the constitution to explain to you the difference between the government and the political party. Constitutionally, it's quite a significant difference.
Quote by sara-johnYou mean as opposed to now, when the parties that lose the election get more state funding than the party that wins?
State funding has to be the way forward with this, but to decide how much goes to each party would be the difficult part, the Libdems would love to have an equal amount of funding to the Labour and Conservatives. Maybe proportional to percentage of vote is the answer, but then that means the most successful party of the previous election would always have the most funds for the next.
Quote by Plimboy
Must admit ....I`m more interested to know if anybody has any sensible suggestions as to how political parties should be funded, cos picking a single dodgy example seems a pretty pointless exercise.
A very valid point - I think that parties should be largely self financing, in other words members pay an adeqate subscription to make up most of the day to day running costs. Additional funds, in particular at election times or to buy an office building, could be raised by sponsorship, the names of the big business or union or other entities involved being clearly identified.
Plim
Which is a good summary of where we are now.
Perhaps it is time that the 3 major parties were given a budget out of public spending to run election campaigns.
As for general day to day running costs, each member could pay a % of thier income into the party funds, a bit like the mormon church. For that matter most churches are funded by voluntary annonymous contributions, perhaps all parties should be made to only accept annonymous contributions, that way the Unions can give as much as they want to whatever party they want, the Business and private sector can do the same, this way there could be no question of financing a party for personal gain.
Personally I think nothing will change as long as we have party politics, what we need is a few more independants in the government. OK so one man cannot change policy, or can he, in a hung parliment, one independant vote would be valued by all parties, you find that parties will negotiate with independants, they will agree to support a bill offered up by the independant, in return for his support with a bill of thier own, sometimes the independant will be on the side of ruling party other times his/her conscios will have them vote with the other parties.
Independants can vote for and against a bill based on thier own views not party policy forced by the whips to vote for something they are against, very important in situations like fox hunting, the gulf war, the afghan war etc.
As for general day to day running costs, each member could pay a % of thier income into the party funds, a bit like the mormon church. For that matter most churches are funded by voluntary annonymous contributions, perhaps all parties should be made to only accept annonymous contributions, that way the Unions can give as much as they want to whatever party they want, the Business and private sector can do the same, this way there could be no question of financing a party for personal gain.
Personally I think nothing will change as long as we have party politics, what we need is a few more independants in the government. OK so one man cannot change policy, or can he, in a hung parliment, one independant vote would be valued by all parties, you find that parties will negotiate with independants, they will agree to support a bill offered up by the independant, in return for his support with a bill of thier own, sometimes the independant will be on the side of ruling party other times his/her conscios will have them vote with the other parties.
Independants can vote for and against a bill based on thier own views not party policy forced by the whips to vote for something they are against, very important in situations like fox hunting, the gulf war, the afghan war etc.
