tog3 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I'm not sure what obscure figures you are attempting to concoct here to try and prop up your argument. Government spending is now far higher than it was in the past as is the tax burden on our industries. However you chose to try and dress it up there is no getting away from the fact that UK car production has fallen by at least 30% since 1997 and major manufacturers such as Rover, Ford and Peugeot have shifted their entire car production operation overseas. Others like vauxhall, Bentley, Rolls Royce and Aston Martin have shifted the majority of it and others like Jaguar and Land Rover are in the process of doing so. As a result UK steel manufacturing is falling and enginerring companies that lived off the motor industry are in decline. I'm sort of confused by all this talk of lack of credit from the banks. If you want to claim that much of the blame for the financial problems is down to banks making risky loans, surely trying to force banks to loan money to ventures that do not stand up to comercial scrutiny isn't too wise. They should put back into the economy they took out in order to help it get going and be prepared to afford some risk. Who says the ventures don't stand up to scrutiny. The banks were clearly throwing money at people who wanted loans up until their bubble burst, there wasn't much scrutiny going on then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Just one recent example would be fine. It seems reasonable to expect that a currentish membership have voted for it rather people who have long since died. One example however is not needed since A.) any member can opt out should they wish and B) any member can draft a motion calling for a change to the political fund, put it to their branch AGM and if successful have it debated and voted on at their national conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 That sounds very like the BNP manifesto. It is pretty standard stuff you will find in every parties manifestos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 They should put back into the economy they took out in order to help it get going and be prepared to afford some risk. Who says the ventures don't stand up to scrutiny. The banks were clearly throwing money at people who wanted loans up until their bubble burst, there wasn't much scrutiny going on then Indeed loans like the one to forgemasters would have been a win for everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 One example however is not needed since A.) any member can opt out should they wish and B) any member can draft a motion calling for a change to the political fund, put it to their branch AGM and if successful have it debated and voted on at their national conference. How much simpler that a ballot with your subs. It's amazing that it's never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 How much simpler that a ballot with your subs. It's amazing that it's never happened. Your two sentences make no sense together. In relation to the first sentence, yes much simpler and more democratic than a single ballot. In relation to the second quite clearly it has happened in those unions affiliated to the labour party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 any member can opt out should they wish any member can draft a motion calling for a change to the political fund put it to their branch AGM if successful have it debated voted on at their national conference. much simpler and more democratic than a single ballot. Priceless! Only a union man could think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Priceless! Only a union man could think that. Only someone with no understanding of history or democracy would think otherwise. Every ten years there has to be a secret ballot of the entire membership... contributors and non-contributors about whether to have a political fund. The law is designed and geared towards obstructing democratic control by imposition of burdensome balloting procedures and by giving people a say in use of the fund who don't contribute. This whole thread is based on an absurdity. The vestiges of credibility the labour party has comes from its association with the Trade Union movement. A movement fundamentally democratic, that only moves away from those principles where anti-trade union laws like those on political funds obstruct them. Contrast this with the Tories who are backed with more than 50% of funding coming from the City with no democratic accountability from those who's money is being contributed. No say for those that invest in the banks, no control for the shareholders. Money given by the very people that caused the financial crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Priceless! Only a union man could think that. I ask you again Tony, how often would you suggest the membership is balloted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 It's not for me to say. I'm just asking if any union has asked its membership in living memory if they want to financially support a political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.