If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Blears: Break link with unions? Nah!
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Whenever the annoying little blighter that is Hazel Blears appears in the media, you know what's coming is bad. And this is no exception. Says the BBC: "Labour will not break its financial link with the trade unions as part of changes to party funding, Labour chairman Hazel Blears has indicated. Tory chairman Francis Maude said the unions were 'pulling Labour's strings'. But Ms Blears said the link was 'not simply about money' but giving working people a 'voice'. The funding of political parties is being investigated following claims that peerages were offered in return for loans." >> Details >>
So, are the trade unions pulling Labour's strings? Socialist trade unions are unlikely to approve of peerages being sold for donations to the party. They're not especially likely to approve of tax avoidance crackdowns that are always promised but never materialise. Neither would they give their support to illegal conflicts abroad. Labour has never ignored the unions more, yet the unions continue to waste their members hard-earned money on a political party that pretends they don't exist.
Apparently, we're meant to believe that the link is being retained simply to give working people a voice in politics. Don't make me laugh. Firstly, trade unions are stuffed full of public sector workers, and we know productivity there is insultingly poor compared to the private sector, which does not have an infinite supply of money to burn. Secondly, the Labour Party of today does not care about the voice of working people. Today, Labour is the party of the rich, the party that gives generously... to multi-millionaires who donate money to them. They don't care about what the trade unions think. They only care about the money that the unions still lavish on them. Here's a radical idea - instead of Labour breaking its link with the unions, why don't the unions break their link with Labour? That way, members money goes towards something more important, like feathering the nests of trade union bosses.
Here was Labour's one opportunity to make a radical reform to the way political parties are rewarded. Like with so many things, New Labour has squandered it.
Over to the P&D masses...
So, are the trade unions pulling Labour's strings? Socialist trade unions are unlikely to approve of peerages being sold for donations to the party. They're not especially likely to approve of tax avoidance crackdowns that are always promised but never materialise. Neither would they give their support to illegal conflicts abroad. Labour has never ignored the unions more, yet the unions continue to waste their members hard-earned money on a political party that pretends they don't exist.
Apparently, we're meant to believe that the link is being retained simply to give working people a voice in politics. Don't make me laugh. Firstly, trade unions are stuffed full of public sector workers, and we know productivity there is insultingly poor compared to the private sector, which does not have an infinite supply of money to burn. Secondly, the Labour Party of today does not care about the voice of working people. Today, Labour is the party of the rich, the party that gives generously... to multi-millionaires who donate money to them. They don't care about what the trade unions think. They only care about the money that the unions still lavish on them. Here's a radical idea - instead of Labour breaking its link with the unions, why don't the unions break their link with Labour? That way, members money goes towards something more important, like feathering the nests of trade union bosses.
Here was Labour's one opportunity to make a radical reform to the way political parties are rewarded. Like with so many things, New Labour has squandered it.
Over to the P&D masses...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Unions are needed today simply to keep the balance right. I expect they will still be needed 200 years from now... or for as long as capitalism exists anyway.
True ^
Labour should go back to listenening to the Unions, they were its power base. Infact, the idea was for Labour to represent the workers. What has become?
Unions are about protecting workers' rights, not about funding political parties. Subscription money should be spent on protecting workers, not on funding Blair's anti-Semitic political advertising campaigns. If a member of a trade union wants to fund Labour, it's not exactly hard to join the party.
SG, it's worse than Labour "ignoring" the TUC now. The TUC actually ends up voting for, and pushing through, Blair's anti-rights reforms. Anyone who thinks the TUC actually gives a fuck about the people who fund them- the members- should go and read Through the Looking Glass by Liz Davies. I highly recommend it as a good read, showing exactly what vile scum it is that run this country, and how its the same vile scum that run the TUC.
They should perhaps also go and look at how Unison central office stood so valiantly alongside the Cumbrian nurses who were subjected to 30 years of sexual discrimination. When the NHS Trust was forced to hand over £300m in back-dated pay for that discrimination, Unison ACTUALLY OPPOSED IT! Great respect for workers rights that was- anyone would think that Unison were pro-Blair and trying to lick his tonsils clean through his rectum or something.
Not sure about funding but the CBI has very close links with both the tories and new labour.
Forgive me if I give it a miss. I've also got deep misgivings about the CBI's self-interest. Remember when the government released the white paper on pensions that told us we'd have to work beyond death? OK, I made that bit up, but you know what I mean. Sir Digby Jones, their head supremo, said "Without a meaningful package of financial support, hard-pressed small firms will be left high and dry at the cost of the jobs of the very people this was designed to help.". Roughly translated, this means "We don't want to have to fund people's pensions and we want lots and lots of lovely government money so we can avoid our responsibilities.".
On second thought, Blagsta, you're probably right. Expect more CBI-bashing on my part in the near future.
It has very close links with the government of the time, which is what it should do, being a pressure group and everything.
Perhaps if the uinons spent less time sucking Blair's cock and more time pressuring for workers rights we might actually have some. The unions actually sacrifice their members interests by not forging close links with all political parties.
Workers don't agree. Trade union membership is in terminal decline. That’s bollocks anyway, in most industries unions are irrelevant these days. For most people unions are pointless - the only real beneficiary of many unions is the fat cat general secretary on £150k with a free chauffeured Jag.
Anyway about funding...The Conservatives and LibDems it appears are claiming to support a £50k cap on donations, Labour agrees but want trade unions to be exempt. The £50k cap should apply to everyone or no-one. (As the Conservatives/LibDems are arguing). Personally I am against any cap on party funding.
Nah, its just that for most people there isn't the option of joining a union. It's certainly the case in most private-sector offices.
Which is why, funnily enough, the conditions in many private-sector offices and call centres are shit.
I certainly think joining a union is worth it if you get the chance, because of the local benefits. I know Unison at local level have been very helpful with t'missus.
It's just the twats who run it at national level that are the problem.
It should apply to everyone.
Political parties shouldn't be funded from the public purse, but they should have a maximum budget proscribed by law.
Even after the milk snatcher's near-total extermination of trade unionism, the trades are still there and they still play a major role.
Remember, it's not fluffy office workers who are in most need of unions (even though they help those too). It's people in manufacturing, in services, in transport... And without unions, they'd be truly fucked within a year.
Party because we think that we don't need them, forgetting that the rights we have as workers are as a direct result of Union activity.
Interesting that so many companies ban unions in their offices abroad - inc. Nike is the far east. Have you ever considered why?
Right up to the minute they need them.
I've watch as people have signed off their union because they didn't see the point of paying £6 per month to "someone who does nothing for me".
Then they wanted legal protection and advice in a work related disagreement...
Funding generally, or individual donations?
It's a different argument.
I have no wish to see a cap on total donations, but no single person should be able to bankroll a party.
Do you really believe such person would have no influence in future party policy?
Political parties can (and do) sometimes reject donations.
If large anonymous donations are banned – as they presently are I do not really see a major problem.
Cases where there has been an obvious link between a donation and policy, as the case with Bernie’s million pound donation to the Labour party are usually pretty obvious and easily exposed.
Tbh I will go back slightly on what I said earlier. There probably is a need for some limits on spending but I don't really see any problem with a wealthy individual giving £100k or whatever.