Jump to content

50%+ of Labour Party funding comes from trade unions.


Recommended Posts

You get to vote for your MP more often than you get to vote on whether your union should fund a political party and you can go and speak to them personally pretty much any week of the year to ask them to do something for you.

 

However, from the lack of any cogent answer the obvious conclusion is that there has never been a vote in living memory of a union membership on whether they should fund a political party. Or is that incorrect?

 

You get to vote for your MP once every 5 years.

 

Union members get the opportunity to force a ballot on the political fund every national conference (either annually or every other year).

 

And you can speak to your union rep whenever they are free, likely to be a lot more frequent than your MP.

 

There will have been a ballot for those unions with a political fund every ten years since something like 1982.

 

You have had cogent answers numerous times. In every way unions are more democratic than Parliament, the Conservative party, and Conservative Party funders who make no pretense towards democracy.

 

The only areas you can fault unions on democratically are those rules imposed on them... the ability of non-participants in the political fund to have a say on how it is used, and their right to ignore the decision made and not make contributions.

 

So yes you are incorrect and have been told you are incorrect across several pages now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get to vote for your MP more often than you get to vote on whether your union should fund a political party and you can go and speak to them personally pretty much any week of the year to ask them to do something for you.

 

However, from the lack of any cogent answer the obvious conclusion is that there has never been a vote in living memory of a union membership on whether they should fund a political party. Or is that incorrect?

 

You really are taking this to the extreme Tony, I thought you had more intelligence. What can be more democratic than being able to say no at any time to paying into a political fund? It is down to individual choice either at the beginning of your membership or at any point up until you leave the union.

 

The only reason I can see for your being so obtuse is that you are trying to make a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really are taking this to the extreme Tony, I thought you had more intelligence. What can be more democratic than being able to say no at any time to paying into a political fund? It is down to individual choice either at the beginning of your membership or at any point up until you leave the union.

 

The only reason I can see for your being so obtuse is that you are trying to make a point.

 

Actually it would be more democratic if they didn't have that right.

 

To illustrate, we can't ignore the laws made in Parliament based on any argument based on democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No dear friend, it is you that doesn't get it.

 

The question is when has a union membership been asked if they want to fund a political party, not whether an individual member wants to when they join.

 

Let me put it another way, when has a union membership been asked if it wants to fund a political party AT ALL.

 

 

But all union members are free to pay into the political fund, or not. Come to think of it, all union members are free to join a union, or not. The closed shop was abolished quite some time ago.

 

So, I really can't see your point. People choose to join a union, they surely know the rules. They then have the choice to opt out of the political fund, if they so wish. If enough people opt out, I'm sure that the unions will reconsider their stance.

 

I suggest that it is your stance that is anti-democratic. You seem to want to change the constitution of trades unions, despite the fact that you are (most likely:)) not a member.

 

In brief. What does it have to do with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade Unions - onto a winner.

 

1) Pressure the lower class plebs to part with their cash

 

2) When things are good - unions are not needed (cash still comes in)

 

3) When things are bad - Unions can't do anything (cash still comes in)

 

HOwever, when pressuring the lower paid plebs "a union is a strong as its members" phrases pop out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade Unions - onto a winner.

 

1) Pressure the lower class plebs to part with their cash

 

2) When things are good - unions are not needed (cash still comes in)

 

3) When things are bad - Unions can't do anything (cash still comes in)

 

HOwever, when pressuring the lower paid plebs "a union is a strong as its members" phrases pop out

 

Back under your bridge trollboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.