HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

An opinion (yet again).

A lot of people feel the same as me in dislike of the unions (bosses) and the fact they own the Labour Party. I think if they had been a free and open party enough people would have voted for them to at least give them the opportunity to form a government. But without the unions it wouldn't be Corbyn in charge, so would the yoof have still come out to vote.

What is coming out now about May and Downing St, plus what the Sunday papers say tomorrow, has killed her politically, she is a lame duck until the Mandarins of the Party decided when the night of the long knives will happen. Until then she is the walking dead, devoid of all friends, so I see no option but for a Brexit delay, there are too many exposed positions and contradictions in the Government for it to go ahead, UNLESS it is devolved to a cross party (Lords and Commons and Civil Servant) committee, which IMO it should be anyway. IMO even though not a member of Parliament people like Nick Clegg should be part of it. A consensual compromise is needed, perhaps a creating of a two stage Brexit with settle down and breathing space..

Some conservative MPs are now dropping hints about Brexit becoming a cross party issue.

Both times that JC has won the Labour leadership election he has won the % vote in all 3 sections of the party - full members, affiliated supporters (members of trade unions and socialist societies who opted to affiliate), and registered supporters. The affiliated supporters represented around 28% of those eligible to vote.

The Labour Party, including JC, is supported by the unions politically and financially (currently around 30% of Labour funding). That relationship has always been in place, and while it gives union leaders much greater access to the corridors of power when there is a Labour government it doesn't always result in them getting exactly what they want. The Blair government never repealed Thatcher's Trade Union laws, for example.

Public funding of parties, along the lines proposed by DQ (earlier in this thread) would appeal to me...

Nobody can deny the trade unions *own* the Labour Party, they sponsor a majority of its candidates for a start. OK Cons are financed by the establishment and big business, both are wrong, both create the polarity we are seeing.

I (still) agree that reform of party funding would be beneficial. I liked the look of DQ's idea...

Daniel Quinn wrote:State funding is simple . Each person who is 18+ , must be on the electoral register

Each year you pay £5 tax to fund political parties , you choose which party the money goes to.
Voting becomes compulsory and you are fined £100 if you do not .

governments now have IT systems which gives real time earnings and benefits info on all people who pay PAYE tax and/or are in receipt of benefits ,it would be relatively easy to extend this to those who are self employed or students . Money would be deducted at source .

edit - £5 is £225 million per annum , that would fund parties and policies to extend democratic participation .it would also fund oversight of money spent by the parties

Lots of small 'donations' from ordinary people - sounds a bit like 'The Unions', though

Don't be daft, tax is not union donations (donations my arse they are forced). There is perfect logic for tax to support election, but as a stop for time wasting eeediots standing for ego or stupidity each person should have 1000 signature of supporters in order to stand, not money.

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote:Don't be daft, tax is not union donations

Hence the... in my post.

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote:donations my arse they are forced

Not so. It's very easy to opt out of the political fund...and many do opt out. That's one reason why Labour looks more to ordinary party members and donors for funding, nowadays.

They are "forced by" the local union officers and fellow left wing workers, it is made obvious (I am told) that it is socially required, or you will lose friends and may be bullied. I am told in some industries like the railways union bullying is rife.

I am told the opposite...

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote:They are "forced by" the local union officers and fellow left wing workers, it is made obvious (I am told) that it is socially required, or you will lose friends and may be bullied. I am told in some industries like the railways union bullying is rife.

My personal experience is precisely the opposite. When I worked for The Post Office/British Telecom/BT I was a union rep myself and I promise you I never had anyone's arm up their back and that was in the days when unions were a bloody site more militant than they are now. I am currently a member of USDAW and I opted in to that. Our Union rep comes round about once a month and takes a table in the dining area for the day. He doesn't chase people he just has a selection of information pamphlets on the table and talks to anyone who comes over to see what's going on. That's personal experience, not what I've been told.

Arm up back bullying was not what I meant. Again I speak to drivers on the Southeastern, who work out of Slade Green depot, they all talk about bullying and abuse from the drivers who wanted a strike and the union officials, when they wouldn't go on strike to remove the one man trains. They also say bullying is rife on the Southern in the present series of strikes. Especially when a driver threatens to leave the union.