Mecky Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 After what's gone on in the last few years, we're all cynical. Labour's £1m boost from property tycoon in cash for honours row Cash-for-honours lenders bail out Labour as party plugs £16m deficit Cash for honours: Labour hid millions from auditors Peter Hain resigns over donations scandal [Hain was Work and Pensions Secretary under Gordon Brown] Then there was "Donnygate" in which a senior Labour councillor and the property developer who bribed him were both jailed. Donnygate scandal ends in jail terms And on a more national scale. LINK "Raised concerns?" I'll bet they did. Why have you linked to all the Labour stuff, when people on here have said that it's common to all political parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Why have you linked to all the Labour stuff, when people on here have said that it's common to all political parties? Perhaps it's because Labour members like you never admit to Labour corruption and only hightlight that of other parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Perhaps it's because Labour members like you never admit to Labour corruption and only hightlight that of other parties. Thanks, but I'm not a Labour member and, indeed, I don't vote for anyone. The question still remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 No,just that they are more susceptible to the whiplash. You have some medical evidence for that, or is it just because they're the "weaker" sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 The Unions do happen to represent working people, What percentage of working people are in a union? A lot less than half I would imagine.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 The Unions do happen to represent working people, and were set up to combat exploitation of the majority by the wealthy few. The Labour Party was founded by the unions, in order they could have a representative voice in the political debate, instead of only being able to express their views by withdrawal of labour from production. (The clue is in the name.) Not really the same thing is it? yes it is. a relatively small group of people are controlling a major political party in the UK and can oppose popular opinion, including suck major issues as who is the leader and prescriptive Prime Minister of the UK! Not all unions support Labour either, in fact the number supporting Labour currently is less than 20 of the 54 Unions registered with the TUC. Even if they all did support Labour, that's is only 6.5 million out of 62 million people. So to allow approx 10% of the population of this country dictate to the rest is like allowing UKIP take control of the entire country! Unions and Labour may have been created for the reasons you have given, but that does not change how they operate now. ---------- Post added 17-12-2012 at 10:21 ---------- Well Bernie Ecclestone donated money to Mr Blair's coffins for an exemption for Formula 1 racing,designed to circumvent laws on advertising. Don't forget the whole Cash for Honours scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 yes it is. a relatively small group of people are controlling a major political party in the UK and can oppose popular opinion, including suck major issues as who is the leader and prescriptive Prime Minister of the UK! Not all unions support Labour either, in fact the number supporting Labour currently is less than 20 of the 54 Unions registered with the TUC. Even if they all did support Labour, that's is only 6.5 million out of 62 million people. So to allow approx 10% of the population of this country dictate to the rest is like allowing UKIP take control of the entire country! Unions and Labour may have been created for the reasons you have given, but that does not change how they operate now. ---------- Post added 17-12-2012 at 10:21 ---------- Don't forget the whole Cash for Honours scandal. There is something of an anomoly though isn't there? By law unions have to ask their members if they want part of their subs to go to a political fund. I don't think that large companies who donate to the Conservative Party for example are required to ask their shareholders if that's where they want their money to go. Thus using your analogy an even smaller percentage of individuals dictate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 There is something of an anomoly though isn't there? By law unions have to ask their members if they want part of their subs to go to a political fund. I don't think that large companies who donate to the Conservative Party for example are required to ask their shareholders if that's where they want their money to go. Thus using your analogy an even smaller percentage of individuals dictate. very true, but then again a shareholder has the option to take their money elsewhere, unlike union members in the majority of cases. Its either be represented or not. plus there may be conspiracy theories out there over this, but I don't know of any leader of any other party being installed in such the same way as Miliband was at the head of Labour. Labour has some of the least democratic rules when it comes to their leadership battles and this is why you don't see challenges for the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvp82 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Thanks, but I'm not a Labour member and, indeed, I don't vote for anyone. The question still remains. Well the OP did link to a story about a Tory goverment minister. Maybe vague_boy is just addressing the balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Even if they all did support Labour, that's is only 6.5 million out of 62 million people. So to allow approx 10% of the population of this country dictate to the rest is like allowing UKIP take control of the entire country! Now, in Australia, some 45% of seats always return a "conservative"-type MP, and 45% a Labor Party MP, leaving 10% of seats potentially "swinging". In that 10%, the voters uasuall divide into 3 groups, 45% for each party, 10% swinging. The swinging voters in the swinging seats decide the election result, and thereby "dictate to the rest"; that is, 10% of 10% of the electorate, which I make 1%! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.