Bigthumb Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 50%+ of Labour Party funding comes from trade unions. Even Lord Levi thinks that is unhealthy. http://www.onenewspage.co.uk/news/UK/20110127/19133384/Lord-Levy-urges-Labour-to-cut-funding-ties.htm Lord Levy urges Labour to cut funding ties to unions Labour's chief fundraiser under Tony Blair calls for cleanup of system including public funding for parties and cap on donations The man who ran Tony Blair's fundraising operation has urged Labour to cut its "umbilical cord" with the trade unions.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Shock horror whatever next? . Firms and individuals donated £11.4m in 2010, the bureau said, bringing the total from the City since David Cameron became leader to more than £42m. But the government rejected any claims that donors were influencing policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 See the difference is that unions are the democratic representatives of millions of people....whereas banks, financiers and wealthy aristocrats are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Shock horror whatever next? It's just a childish retaliatory thread, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 See the difference is that unions are the democratic representatives of millions of people....whereas banks, financiers and wealthy aristocrats are not. surely the banks, financiers, big and small businesses are representing the people that work in those areas and want the banks and businesses to remain in this country? Probably therefore also representing millions. The unions are only representing the people that actually vote on things-isn't that actually a relatively small number? I am not claiming knowledge here I am wondering? People are not either working class or rich, most people are in the middle and are probably therefore more represented by business leaders than bob "the idiot" crow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 It's just a childish retaliatory thread, that's all. Which thread came first?…The one about Labour party backing or the one about Tory backing and more to the point shouldn’t they be merged as they are opposite sides of the same coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Which thread came first?…The one about Labour party backing or the one about Tory backing and more to the point shouldn’t they be merged as they are opposite sides of the same coin. Makes you wonder why they have post times on the thread doesn't it? Besides, we all know where the funding comes from as it's a frequent FIO request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 surely the banks, financiers, big and small businesses are representing the people that work in those areas and want the banks and businesses to remain in this country? Probably therefore also representing millions. The unions are only representing the people that actually vote on things-isn't that actually a relatively small number? I am not claiming knowledge here I am wondering? People are not either working class or rich, most people are in the middle and are probably therefore more represented by business leaders than bob "the idiot" crow. I think both models have their flaws. While supposedly both parties had their own ideology (although the differences are narrowing in my opinion), both parties are are risk of being 'bought off' and will lack objectivity when making decisions in the best interest of the county. That it why I suggested in the other thread that parties are state funded, where each person can allocate a set amount to a party of their choice, though it needn't be the party they vote for! It really would end the buying of influence in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 But isn't it interesting that Lord Levi, who was Labour's chief fund raiser is concerned about the party being in the pocket of unions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 But isn't it interesting that Lord Levi, who was Labour's chief fund raiser is concerned about the party being in the pocket of unions? There were some in the New Labour project who liked little more than the Unions money. Blair and Mandleson in particular spring to mind. Perhaps Lord Levi can be put into a similar group? The amount of anti-union rhetoric and legislation that was past was astonishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.