Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
P155ing On Democracy; 'savings'
Topic Started: Dec 4 2015, 11:13 PM (903 Views)
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/long-and-short-it

Quote:
 

On Wednesday, the Chancellor announced his decision to cut public funding for opposition parties by a fifth.


So let’s be clear - the decision to cut public funding for opposition parties by 19% is bad news for democracy. The UK already spends just a tenth of the European average on funding parties. This cut could therefore be deeply damaging for accountability. And as for the ‘cutting the cost of politics’ argument, well, just look at how many Lords the government has appointed since 2010 - 233 new Peers, at a cost of at least £24,000 each per year in expenses and allowances alone. 50% of them have been Conservatives.

Of course, the whole party funding system is a complete mess as it is, what with parties’ worrying reliance on big donors and the ever-intensifying spending arms race at every election time. But cutting Short money risks making it worse. By removing public money from the mix, it risks making parties even more reliant on big donors – with all the potential for corruption that entails.

Unilateral moves like this could be seen as overtly partisan, and could make it even harder for parties to get round the table and thrash out a deal on the real problem – their over-reliance on big donors’ money. Until we see a cap on donations and a lower spending limit, taking away public money from opposition parties will just make things worse.


This is an outrage TBH. And has it been widely reported? Not that I've seen..this govt take the p1ss everyday.
Edited by skwirked, Dec 4 2015, 11:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Tories are veering to the right, the British people will, like they always do, tire of being taken for a ride by these chancers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 4 2015, 11:14 PM
The Tories are veering to the right, the British people will, like they always do, tire of being taken for a ride by these chancers.
I said many moons ago that no party should receive a penny of taxpayers money, if they wish to "spread the word" then let them do so out of their own pockets, after all they are the ones who will ultimately benefit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 4 2015, 11:20 PM
I said many moons ago that no party should receive a penny of taxpayers money, if they wish to "spread the word" then let them do so out of their own pockets, after all they are the ones who will ultimately benefit.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo  :o

That will mean politicians for sale, all politics should state funded and accountable, lobbying of any sort to be made public, completely out in the open, fully minuted, published and above board.

Then they might actually work for us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 4 2015, 11:25 PM
Rich
Dec 4 2015, 11:20 PM
I said many moons ago that no party should receive a penny of taxpayers money, if they wish to "spread the word" then let them do so out of their own pockets, after all they are the ones who will ultimately benefit.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo  :o

That will mean politicians for sale, all politics should state funded and accountable, lobbying of any sort to be made public, completely out in the open, fully minuted, published and above board.

Then they might actually work for us.
No way, we want a return to the good ol days when politicians were Respectable types from quality stock; only those of the "Good and Great" need apply; plebs have no place in politics.

If only we could clone Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 4 2015, 11:31 PM

If only we could clone Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Good idea, we could re plank Margate Pier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
That'd be overly harsh to be fair.






..On the residents of Margate. Can you imagine his irritating conceited groans?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well no I wasn't aware of this measure either

But I also wasn't aware that this 'Short Money' has risen year-on year from £6.9 million in 2010-11 to £9.3 million in 2015-16 Link

Why the over 30% increase?

And note that the the proposal is " to reduce Short Money allocations by
19%, in line with the average savings made from unprotected Whitehall departments over this Spending Review. "


I can find better things to get angry about
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Has it risen in line with MP salaries changes on average? As I recall they were similarly enormous.

Why should the govt get massive resources and the opposition not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 12:59 AM

Why should the govt get massive resources and the opposition not?

rather than "why should opposition parties be given this money" a much better question, in my view, is "why should the government be allowed to abuse the resources of state to further its political ends"

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 4 2015, 11:13 PM


This is an outrage TBH. And has it been widely reported? Not that I've seen..this govt take the p1ss everyday.
It is yet another example of the British media/press hiding a story a where no-body notices it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Dec 5 2015, 08:00 AM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 12:59 AM

Why should the govt get massive resources and the opposition not?

rather than "why should opposition parties be given this money" a much better question, in my view, is "why should the government be allowed to abuse the resources of state to further its political ends"

Quite right. Not one Penny of Taxpayers money should be given to any political party to assist in spreading it's message. If such a party cannot garner public support and funds required then it should be left to wither. There is no evidence that it is in the interest of the State that any of the ideologies or dogmas should be kept alive and therefore funded by the Public Purse. For example: if Labour is to lose the interest of the electorate and as a consequence wither away then best stand aside and let it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Dec 5 2015, 08:00 AM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 12:59 AM

Why should the govt get massive resources and the opposition not?

rather than "why should opposition parties be given this money" a much better question, in my view, is "why should the government be allowed to abuse the resources of state to further its political ends"

:thumbsup: Fair point.

Naturally, MP's bloated expenditure does not please me and IMO they should all be vastly curtailed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 12:59 AM
Has it risen in line with MP salaries changes on average? As I recall they were similarly enormous.

Why should the govt get massive resources and the opposition not?
So it went right past you that the government side of that equation was reduced by the same amount?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
It was reduced 'in line with..' WH expenditure.

As the doc points out the govt get considerably more resources, so your extrapolations are a bit misleading.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 11:13 AM
It was reduced 'in line with..' WH expenditure.

As the doc points out the govt get considerably more resources, so your extrapolations are a bit misleading.
So you'd reduce the government budget to £10M would you? Another debate methinks

Both sides of this equation are being cut by the same 19%. Get over it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 5 2015, 08:57 AM
johnofgwent
Dec 5 2015, 08:00 AM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 12:59 AM

Why should the govt get massive resources and the opposition not?

rather than "why should opposition parties be given this money" a much better question, in my view, is "why should the government be allowed to abuse the resources of state to further its political ends"

Quite right. Not one Penny of Taxpayers money should be given to any political party to assist in spreading it's message. If such a party cannot garner public support and funds required then it should be left to wither. There is no evidence that it is in the interest of the State that any of the ideologies or dogmas should be kept alive and therefore funded by the Public Purse. For example: if Labour is to lose the interest of the electorate and as a consequence wither away then best stand aside and let it.
Well, looking deeper into this ... the funds in question are SUPPOSED to be to enable the carrying out of parliamentary duties, and have in the past been used to fund researchers working for opposition front bench spokesmen. Of course, these days, that work is carried out by unpaid interns eager to show willing in order to gain a future nomination. One reason for the increase in recent years might be the fact there are now more opposition parties able to claim it ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 5 2015, 11:18 AM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 11:13 AM
It was reduced 'in line with..' WH expenditure.

As the doc points out the govt get considerably more resources, so your extrapolations are a bit misleading.
So you'd reduce the government budget to £10M would you? Another debate methinks

Both sides of this equation are being cut by the same 19%. Get over it
Well we should aim for European averages IMO.

I don't want UK politics to become even more Americanised where those with the money get all the power, RJD admits he wants the UK to be more like US why do you think he and others alike back such changes?

The more parties the better, all deserve a fair chance; that's democracy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 11:27 AM
Steve K
Dec 5 2015, 11:18 AM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 11:13 AM
It was reduced 'in line with..' WH expenditure.

As the doc points out the govt get considerably more resources, so your extrapolations are a bit misleading.
So you'd reduce the government budget to £10M would you? Another debate methinks

Both sides of this equation are being cut by the same 19%. Get over it
Well we should aim for European averages IMO.

I don't want UK politics to become even more Americanised where those with the money get all the power, RJD admits he wants the UK to be more like US why do you think he and others alike back such changes?

The more parties the better, all deserve a fair chance; that's democracy.
seconded
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 4 2015, 11:25 PM
Rich
Dec 4 2015, 11:20 PM
I said many moons ago that no party should receive a penny of taxpayers money, if they wish to "spread the word" then let them do so out of their own pockets, after all they are the ones who will ultimately benefit.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo  :o

That will mean politicians for sale, all politics should state funded and accountable, lobbying of any sort to be made public, completely out in the open, fully minuted, published and above board.

Then they might actually work for us.
Remind me

Just how many Labour MPs are presently sponsored by trades union ?


( Of 232 Labour MPs 226 have ties to trades unions, and 147 to Unite specifically.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 5 2015, 12:00 PM
Tigger
Dec 4 2015, 11:25 PM
Rich
Dec 4 2015, 11:20 PM
I said many moons ago that no party should receive a penny of taxpayers money, if they wish to "spread the word" then let them do so out of their own pockets, after all they are the ones who will ultimately benefit.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo  :o

That will mean politicians for sale, all politics should state funded and accountable, lobbying of any sort to be made public, completely out in the open, fully minuted, published and above board.

Then they might actually work for us.
Remind me

Just how many Labour MPs are presently sponsored by trades union ?


( Of 232 Labour MPs 226 have ties to trades unions, and 147 to Unite specifically.)
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899

Are you saying the Tories are more democratic?

!jk!

Bear in mind: the figures don't include the money that the Tories get from the state, but the Lab figures do (the short money) hence why the figures are skewed against Lab.

And see:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/05/conservatives-raise-10-times-more-than-labour-in-late-donations


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/19/political-parties-received-over-50m-in-donations-in-first-half-of-2015


Very interesting how much the Tories spent on their 2010 win compared to Lab:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Expenditure.htm
Edited by skwirked, Dec 5 2015, 12:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 4 2015, 11:20 PM
Tigger
Dec 4 2015, 11:14 PM
The Tories are veering to the right, the British people will, like they always do, tire of being taken for a ride by these chancers.
I said many moons ago that no party should receive a penny of taxpayers money, if they wish to "spread the word" then let them do so out of their own pockets, after all they are the ones who will ultimately benefit.
How? When the pockets are empty!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 5 2015, 11:31 AM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 11:27 AM
Steve K
Dec 5 2015, 11:18 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Well we should aim for European averages IMO.

I don't want UK politics to become even more Americanised where those with the money get all the power, RJD admits he wants the UK to be more like US why do you think he and others alike back such changes?

The more parties the better, all deserve a fair chance; that's democracy.
seconded
But that is rubbish I did not mention the USA and I do not see why the State should fund those who cannot gain sufficient public support. All we end up doing is throwing good money after bad causes and prolonging isms that have long past their sell by dates. The Poster forgets that the likes of Labour and the Tories get plenty of money from their supporters, some of it Taxpayers money leached via the subsidy payments to fund Unions going about business on their member's behalf, yet another scam. Love to see a calculation of the amount of Taxpayers money actually leached out of the Exchequer each year in order to subsidise Politicians peddling their politics? On top of this are all of the sinecures established to garner support. QUANGOs and their ilk are stuffed out with place-persons who have or will provide something to someone, a Brown or a Cameron, something in return.

I know an academic who gave up her University post to sit on QUANGOs and she now sits on three and pulls in >£250,000 PA. She admits to doing very little only pontificating and finds that on average it costs her less than two days per week of effort. It is a bloody disgrace, but the likes of Cameron and all his predecessors are not motivated to reduce the number of gifts they have at their disposal.


Forcing the Taxpayers to subsidise politics is a very bad idea as it drives a wedge between Politicians and Joe Public, it allows the former a free easy ride and as a consequence they can turn a cloth ear.

As for the rich then dictating political direction, there is no reason why we do not cap contributions and expenditures. But neither Labour nor the Tories are interested.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Do Parties need the money?
If so what is it needed for?
How much is needed, what does it do to have money?
Is it democratic for those with most money to have the most influence?
Is it especially democratic when those funding political parties are not voters?
I do not require to hear answers ..... those answers are for each his own conscience!

Edited by Affa, Dec 5 2015, 02:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 12:33 PM
Ewill
Dec 5 2015, 12:00 PM
Tigger
Dec 4 2015, 11:25 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Remind me

Just how many Labour MPs are presently sponsored by trades union ?


( Of 232 Labour MPs 226 have ties to trades unions, and 147 to Unite specifically.)
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899

Are you saying the Tories are more democratic?

!jk!

Bear in mind: the figures don't include the money that the Tories get from the state, but the Lab figures do (the short money) hence why the figures are skewed against Lab.

And see:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/05/conservatives-raise-10-times-more-than-labour-in-late-donations


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/19/political-parties-received-over-50m-in-donations-in-first-half-of-2015


Very interesting how much the Tories spent on their 2010 win compared to Lab:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Expenditure.htm
How many Conservative MPs are financially sponsored by individual trades unions on top of what they might get in donations from individuals/companies? Do remember labour get individual/company donations too

.....Mr Miliband said the Tory leader was “owned by a few millionaires at the top of society”.

....... But is it true? FactCheck does the numbers.

..................

Labour has received just over £60m in donations, while the Tories have taken just under £45m since the general election of 2010.

Labour’s biggest donor by far is Unite, which has provided 20 per cent, or £11.9m, of party donations since the election.

..................................


Beyond the unions, Labour doesn’t get much money from companies or individuals.

Company donations make up just 3 per cent of donations – and the largest company donor is Saatchi and Saatchi, which has donated £322,605.41 worth of advertising since the election.

Individual donations meanwhile bring in 7 per cent of Labour’s funding.

Only 13 of the 230 individual donations are for more than £50,000. The top donors include the businessman John Mills – who has the made the largest single donation of £1,647,500 since the election.


..................................

Individual donations to the Conservative Party account for £27.9m ...........party has been given 1,398 individual donations since the election (Labour has clocked up 230).

....................................

The Tory party’s biggest individual donor is Michael Farmer – who has made eight donations totalling £2,191,392.42.........................................
The Tories’ second largest donor since the election is property multi-millionaire David Rowland – responsible for the party’s single largest donation since the election of £1,277,936.32.

.............................


As for companies, they make up 25 per cent of Tory donations. The biggest donor by far is JCB Research – which has donated a total £1.4m since the election. Few companies hold a torch to JCB’s generosity, but other notables include mobile phone group Lycamobile with £343,442 and city investment group Flowidea with £315,950.

Meanwhile, the National Conservative Draws Society – a fundraising lottery for Tory members – pings up on the radar as having donated £2.6m.

.................

Delving into the Electoral Commission’s party funding records, the first surprise is that Labour has received 25 per cent more funding than the Tory party since the General Election of 6 May 2010.

............................

Labour’s single largest donor since the election is Unite, whose money has accounted for 20 per cent of all party donations.

.............................

And what of Mr Miliband’s assertion that the Tory party is bankrolled by a few millionaires? Well – it’s not a few, it’s a few hundred.

The Tories have a slew of high rolling donors – the most generous donor, hedge fund founder Michael Farmer, has given the Tories £2.1m since the election.

.............
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Why are you quoting the link as if it backs you up?

It proves the Tories are corrupt heathens in the pockets of rich businessmen. Lab only recv'd a tiny amount of donations from rich individuals.

The TU's are far more democratic than private corps/rich individuals who are granted access to Cam and co.

Heres more:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-the-city-bankrolls-tory-party-2208668.html

Feel free to keep openly stating that black is white. !wav! It is your preferred style of debate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 04:09 PM
Why are you quoting the link as if it backs you up?

It proves the Tories are corrupt heathens in the pockets of rich businessmen. Lab only recv'd a tiny amount of donations from rich individuals.

The TU's are far more democratic than private corps/rich individuals who are granted access to Cam and co.

Heres more:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-the-city-bankrolls-tory-party-2208668.html

Feel free to keep openly stating that black is white. !wav! It is your preferred style of debate.
I repeat

Exactly how many Conservative MPs are sponsored by individual trades unions ?

How many Conservative MPs do Unite fund?

(the link does back my post up - completely-Labour receive 20% of their funding from one individual trades union )
Edited by Ewill, Dec 5 2015, 04:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
vate corps/rich individuals who are granted access to Cam and co.>>

All political parties run dining clubs with attending politician ''rank'' according to subscription level

Dining clubs are advertised on all parties' websites with membership criteria clearly shown - they aren't secret societies
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Your contention appears to be that TU's are worse than rich individuals.

I am telling you that that's bollocks.

TU's are democratically run by their members; the average working men. Private businesses are not, QED.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 04:27 PM
Your contention appears to be that TU's are worse than rich individuals.

I am telling you that that's bollocks.

TU's are democratically run by their members; the average working men. Private businesses are not, QED.
LOL

Out of a workforce of about 34m a mere 6.4 m are trades union members

That hardly makes a TU member a representative member of the ''average'' workforce
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

Trade Unions represent their membership, workers.
Their efforts through political donations are to secure the best terms for those workers.
Business represents their shareholders, and similarly aim to enhance the returns of those investors - be they British or Foreign.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Can you comprehend my post..?

I never said 'workforce', I said 'average worker', are you saying that TU affiliated workers are somehow abnormal?

Please explain how private businesses are more democratic than TU's. ;-)

Yep TU's are democratically run and they are filled with typical, average, normal, everyday working people. There is nothing abnormal or unrepresentative about them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 4 2015, 11:13 PM
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/long-and-short-it

Quote:
 

On Wednesday, the Chancellor announced his decision to cut public funding for opposition parties by a fifth.


So let’s be clear - the decision to cut public funding for opposition parties by 19% is bad news for democracy. The UK already spends just a tenth of the European average on funding parties. This cut could therefore be deeply damaging for accountability. And as for the ‘cutting the cost of politics’ argument, well, just look at how many Lords the government has appointed since 2010 - 233 new Peers, at a cost of at least £24,000 each per year in expenses and allowances alone. 50% of them have been Conservatives.

Of course, the whole party funding system is a complete mess as it is, what with parties’ worrying reliance on big donors and the ever-intensifying spending arms race at every election time. But cutting Short money risks making it worse. By removing public money from the mix, it risks making parties even more reliant on big donors – with all the potential for corruption that entails.

Unilateral moves like this could be seen as overtly partisan, and could make it even harder for parties to get round the table and thrash out a deal on the real problem – their over-reliance on big donors’ money. Until we see a cap on donations and a lower spending limit, taking away public money from opposition parties will just make things worse.


This is an outrage TBH. And has it been widely reported? Not that I've seen..this govt take the p1ss everyday.
For some,. the nanny state extends to supporting political parties, no matter how small and even crackpot. if people want to fund a political party all they need to do is offer an agenda that people can sign up to, and the fund and support will roll in. Perhaps Labour supporter concerns are that the funding of the Labour party is in difficulties.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 04:45 PM
Can you comprehend my post..?

I never said 'workforce', I said 'average worker', are you saying that TU affiliated workers are somehow abnormal?

Please explain how private businesses are more democratic than TU's. ;-)

Yep TU's are democratically run and they are filled with typical, average, normal, everyday working people. There is nothing abnormal or unrepresentative about them.
I'm saying that out of a workforce of 34m , the 6.4 m minority who have joined a particular club does not make them representative of the ''average'' worker solely by dint of membership of said club

Some 27.6m are not members of that club



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

Trade Unions represent their membership, workers.>>

They represent their membership who represent a small minority of the workforce
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 5 2015, 04:54 PM

For some,. the nanny state extends to supporting political parties, no matter how small and even crackpot.

Do you not realise that business making political donations are also paying to be 'Nannied'?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 5 2015, 05:04 PM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 04:45 PM
Can you comprehend my post..?

I never said 'workforce', I said 'average worker', are you saying that TU affiliated workers are somehow abnormal?

Please explain how private businesses are more democratic than TU's. ;-)

Yep TU's are democratically run and they are filled with typical, average, normal, everyday working people. There is nothing abnormal or unrepresentative about them.
I'm saying that out of a workforce of 34m , the 6.4 m minority who have joined a particular club does not make them representative of the ''average'' worker solely by dint of membership of said club

Some 27.6m are not members of that club



Yes it does make them representative of average workers, it is filled with average workers who have a voice; they participate in the democratic process.

Simple Q:

Are you saying that TU workers are not in normal occupations such as firefighters, cleaners etc Y/N?

So they are representative.

Private business is only representative of wealthy shareholders, you cannot refute this so seek to shift ground.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 05:10 PM
Ewill
Dec 5 2015, 05:04 PM
skwirked
Dec 5 2015, 04:45 PM
Can you comprehend my post..?

I never said 'workforce', I said 'average worker', are you saying that TU affiliated workers are somehow abnormal?

Please explain how private businesses are more democratic than TU's. ;-)

Yep TU's are democratically run and they are filled with typical, average, normal, everyday working people. There is nothing abnormal or unrepresentative about them.
I'm saying that out of a workforce of 34m , the 6.4 m minority who have joined a particular club does not make them representative of the ''average'' worker solely by dint of membership of said club

Some 27.6m are not members of that club



Yes it does make them representative of average workers, it is filled with average workers who have a voice; they participate in the democratic process.

Simple Q:

Are you saying that TU workers are not in normal occupations such as firefighters, cleaners etc Y/N?

So they are representative.

Private business is only representative of wealthy shareholders, you cannot refute this so seek to shift ground.

The all too regular strikes days off granted to their members by rail unions severely inconveniences vastly greater numbers of the majority ''average'' workers who are not subscribers to trades unions and who are prevented from going about their ''average'' working day and 'average' social calender


Trades unions represent their own members - no-one else
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Private business is only representative of wealthy shareholders, you cannot refute this so seek to shift ground.>>

What utter tripe

SMEs are the lifeblood of the economy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nah, the figures don't back you up here.

Days/time lost to strike action is totally miniscule.

And time lost on the railways due to worker militancy is miniscule, a historical low actually if I recall. !wav!

You cannot refute a word of what I say because you know it's true. ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply