Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[Ian H]

The unions also fund Labour.

On behalf of their members.

 

[Psamathe]

The unions also fund Labour. Let's face it, there's no such thing as a free lunch and all the parties - and many charities and institutions - are compromised by their reliance on their major donors.

On behalf of their members.

I thought that in most Unions members can in effect opt out (or opt-in with some default). My understanding (and do correct me if my understanding is wrong) is that union members have the option to subscribe or not subscribe to a "Political Fund" which is a fund the Union spends on all political cactivities some of which might go to Labour. so union members unsubscribe from the political levy and none of their money can go to any political activities.

 

[Ian H]

I thought that in most Unions members can in effect opt out (or opt-in with some default). My understanding (and do correct me if my understanding is wrong) is that union members have the option to subscribe or not subscribe to a "Political Fund" which is a fund the Union spends on all political cactivities some of which might go to Labour. so union members unsubscribe from the political levy and none of their money can go to any political activities.

Yes,

 

[Bromptonaut]

The unions also fund Labour. Let's face it, there's no such thing as a free lunch and all the parties - and many charities and institutions - are compromised by their reliance on their major donors.

The Labour party was literally founded as the political arm of the Trade Union Movement.

Nobody can claim to be surprised if they act together.

 

[Beebo]

We are talking about personal donations in cash to individuals.
Not general party donations.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Fagash was squirming today when the press were giving him grief about his cryto gift.
I think Brian needs to watch Sky News

 

[AuroraSaab]

I thought that in most Unions members can in effect opt out (or opt-in with some default). My understanding (and do correct me if my understanding is wrong) is that union members have the option to subscribe or not subscribe to a "Political Fund" which is a fund the Union spends on all political cactivities some of which might go to Labour. so union members unsubscribe from the political levy and none of their money can go to any political activities.

We have discussed this before. My point is that all parties (and charities, institutions, academics) end up beholden to their large sponsors, individual or corporate/union, and while you could argue that there's a historical link between socialist parties and the TU movement there's still no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Psamathe]

We have discussed this before. My point is that all parties (and charities, institutions, academics) end up beholden to their large sponsors, individual or corporate/union, and while you could argue that there's a historical link between socialist parties and the TU movement there's still no such thing as a free lunch.

Related aspect is that election campaigning has become far too big budget. Party leaders and senior ministers travelling around in battle buses making appearances like they were some super celebrity when it should be about local people electing their representative.

Far too much power, budget, control, etc. from central party which can take over and override local representation.

Massive expenditure limit cuts required with majority of what's left under the control of local candidates.

 

[Pblakeney]

Related aspect is that election campaigning has become far too big budget. Party leaders and senior ministers travelling around in battle buses making appearances like they were some super celebrity when it should be about local people electing their representative.

Far too much power, budget, control, etc. from central party which can take over and override local representation.

Massive expenditure limit cuts required with majority of what's left under the control of local candidates.

More and more like the US.
Look how well that is going.

 

[BoldonLad]

We have discussed this before. My point is that all parties (and charities, institutions, academics) end up beholden to their large sponsors, individual or corporate/union, and while you could argue that there's a historical link between socialist parties and the TU movement there's still no such thing as a free lunch.

Isn't one of the first priorities, of a Trade Union, to look after their members interests?, in much the same way that a Company's first priority is to look after its shareholders?

In both cases, us "outsiders" come second, at best.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, and I guess you can say they do that by funding parties that match their political aims. But isn't that really just what all donors do too, whether it's unions, businesses, the wind farm guy or Farage's mates. They seek to create an environment in which people of their ilk can flourish. I'm too cynical to believe any of them do it for the wider greater good.

 

[Ian H]

The difference is that Union donations reflect the broader interests of their members, and anyone can join a union. Whose interests does Farage's £5m donor represent? Or JCB's donations?

 

[Dorset Boy]

Fagash claims the £5 million donation was for personal protection as the Home Office had refused to provide him with a protection team.
Yes the BBC do try to expose Fagash

 

[secretsqirrel]

Fagash claims the £5 million donation was for personal protection as the Home Office had refused to provide him with a protection team.
Yes the BBC do try to expose Fagash

“I've been the most attacked, physically, politician of modern times," Farage said. 🤔….

 

[Pblakeney]

Fagash claims the £5 million donation was for personal protection as the Home Office had refused to provide him with a protection team.
Yes the BBC do try to expose Fagash

1. Why should he get preferential treatment?
2. Is he so despised that he needs personal protection?