Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly? All there is left now is Red Labour, Blue Labour, Yellow Labour, and Green Labour. Maybe the odd Independant is right leaning but all the main parties lean left." What? Labour are centre, Tories are right, all the small parties are right. Greens are the only left leaning party. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly? All there is left now is Red Labour, Blue Labour, Yellow Labour, and Green Labour. Maybe the odd Independant is right leaning but all the main parties lean left. What? Labour are centre, Tories are right, all the small parties are right. Greens are the only left leaning party." The SNP | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I know there are some very committed supporters of the blue team on here, who are very anti the red team. They will cite various historical reasons and double down when challenged on the performance of the blues these past 12 years. But really, would the red team be any worse right now? Isn’t it time the blue team stepped aside to put a stop to the chaos and regroup and totally reconsider what it means to be blue and who is the right fit for a team following that vision. Shouldn’t the red team be given their chance now? Will they really be any worse? Could anyone be worse?" I guess the only way we will know is when they take office which could not be far away. We can all speculate if they would be better or worse but until they are in the hot seat for a decent period of time we just don't know. I think the policies need to be laid out in full. No more saying wait until the GE as it might be upon us very shortly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly? All there is left now is Red Labour, Blue Labour, Yellow Labour, and Green Labour. Maybe the odd Independant is right leaning but all the main parties lean left. What? Labour are centre, Tories are right, all the small parties are right. Greens are the only left leaning party. The SNP" Oh yeah, very short sighted of me. We don't have anyone like that to vote for down here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I know there are some very committed supporters of the blue team on here, who are very anti the red team. They will cite various historical reasons and double down when challenged on the performance of the blues these past 12 years. But really, would the red team be any worse right now? Isn’t it time the blue team stepped aside to put a stop to the chaos and regroup and totally reconsider what it means to be blue and who is the right fit for a team following that vision. Shouldn’t the red team be given their chance now? Will they really be any worse? Could anyone be worse?" There probably will be a GE soon enough and it is more likely than not that Sir Kier Starmer will be a PM. I personally think that this will be a good thing. Ideologically the Conservatives cannot govern anymore through this economic crisis. Their ideology is to reduce immigration, and at the moment there is a shortage of employees across all sectors. They want to cut taxes, but we have just seen what happened when Truss and Kwarteng tried that. They want to cut public spending, but they have already cut public spending to the bone over the last 12 years. There is nothing in the Conservative toolbox that can get us out of the £70 billion economic hole that we find ourselves in. Labour will increase taxes on the very richest in society (companies and individuals) and close down things like the non-dom loophole. They will more likely than not ease the tensions between the U.K. and EU and thereby loosen up the frictions that is currently costing us 4% of our GDP in lost trade. Public sector workers will probably get pay rises and this will provide an immediate boost to local and regional economies. There would be nothing to fear from this Labour Party being in office. I think that we would also all appreciate a massive downturn in the volume of political commentary that would happen with a new, organised and fully functional government in place. Let’s be honest… how nice it will be to not have politics rammed down our throat every hour of every day simply because the Government is just getting on and doing its job quietly in the background. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly? All there is left now is Red Labour, Blue Labour, Yellow Labour, and Green Labour. Maybe the odd Independant is right leaning but all the main parties lean left. What? Labour are centre, Tories are right, all the small parties are right. Greens are the only left leaning party." Geometry isn't your strong point then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I know there are some very committed supporters of the blue team on here, who are very anti the red team. They will cite various historical reasons and double down when challenged on the performance of the blues these past 12 years. But really, would the red team be any worse right now? Isn’t it time the blue team stepped aside to put a stop to the chaos and regroup and totally reconsider what it means to be blue and who is the right fit for a team following that vision. Shouldn’t the red team be given their chance now? Will they really be any worse? Could anyone be worse? I guess the only way we will know is when they take office which could not be far away. We can all speculate if they would be better or worse but until they are in the hot seat for a decent period of time we just don't know. I think the policies need to be laid out in full. No more saying wait until the GE as it might be upon us very shortly" Absolutely agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ideologically the Conservatives cannot govern anymore through this economic crisis. Their ideology is to reduce immigration" Is it really, or do they just say it is to get votes and support? It is very telling that Braverman was jumped on quite quickly as it seems she was starting to effectively deport folk. Meanwhile Patel did nothing but talk yet the economic migrants in the boats were allowed to continue unabated. If you compare what they say to what they do you'll see there is real intention to follow through. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ideologically the Conservatives cannot govern anymore through this economic crisis. Their ideology is to reduce immigration Is it really, or do they just say it is to get votes and support? It is very telling that Braverman was jumped on quite quickly as it seems she was starting to effectively deport folk. Meanwhile Patel did nothing but talk yet the economic migrants in the boats were allowed to continue unabated. If you compare what they say to what they do you'll see there is real intention to follow through. " I thought Bravermen was sacked for incompetence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ideologically the Conservatives cannot govern anymore through this economic crisis. Their ideology is to reduce immigration Is it really, or do they just say it is to get votes and support? It is very telling that Braverman was jumped on quite quickly as it seems she was starting to effectively deport folk. Meanwhile Patel did nothing but talk yet the economic migrants in the boats were allowed to continue unabated. If you compare what they say to what they do you'll see there is real intention to follow through. I thought Bravermen was sacked for incompetence? " Braverman fell out with Truss, cocked up and then both sides saw an opportunity to make a point. Her resignation letter was cutting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ideologically the Conservatives cannot govern anymore through this economic crisis. Their ideology is to reduce immigration Is it really, or do they just say it is to get votes and support? It is very telling that Braverman was jumped on quite quickly as it seems she was starting to effectively deport folk. Meanwhile Patel did nothing but talk yet the economic migrants in the boats were allowed to continue unabated. If you compare what they say to what they do you'll see there is real intention to follow through. I thought Bravermen was sacked for incompetence? Braverman fell out with Truss, cocked up and then both sides saw an opportunity to make a point. Her resignation letter was cutting." Yep, but surely she can’t expect to get back in the cabinet after that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ideologically the Conservatives cannot govern anymore through this economic crisis. Their ideology is to reduce immigration Is it really, or do they just say it is to get votes and support? It is very telling that Braverman was jumped on quite quickly as it seems she was starting to effectively deport folk. Meanwhile Patel did nothing but talk yet the economic migrants in the boats were allowed to continue unabated. If you compare what they say to what they do you'll see there is real intention to follow through. I thought Bravermen was sacked for incompetence? Braverman fell out with Truss, cocked up and then both sides saw an opportunity to make a point. Her resignation letter was cutting. Yep, but surely she can’t expect to get back in the cabinet after that? " In this environment, who knows 
Could she shoot someone on Fifth Avenue? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I know there are some very committed supporters of the blue team on here, who are very anti the red team. They will cite various historical reasons and double down when challenged on the performance of the blues these past 12 years. But really, would the red team be any worse right now? Isn’t it time the blue team stepped aside to put a stop to the chaos and regroup and totally reconsider what it means to be blue and who is the right fit for a team following that vision. Shouldn’t the red team be given their chance now? Will they really be any worse? Could anyone be worse?" No not worse, but they are a party that will only win because of a anti tory sentiment and not on their own credentials. Most parties seem to full of grey, lifeless, party member career politicians. But all we need now is ,economic stability and less law breaking by the law makers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I voted conservative last time mainly because Labour was so bad They are not much better now but the blues are just as bad god knows where we are headed" Why didn't you vote for a different party, or no one at all? I'm not suggesting you should have, just wondering why it seemed like a binary decision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I voted conservative last time mainly because Labour was so bad They are not much better now but the blues are just as bad god knows where we are headed" Consider this, it better to have the devil you know then the devil you don’t? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly? All there is left now is Red Labour, Blue Labour, Yellow Labour, and Green Labour. Maybe the odd Independant is right leaning but all the main parties lean left. What? Labour are centre, Tories are right, all the small parties are right. Greens are the only left leaning party. The SNP" Plaid Cymru. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I voted conservative last time mainly because Labour was so bad They are not much better now but the blues are just as bad god knows where we are headed Why didn't you vote for a different party, or no one at all? In the end I voted more against corbyn and Tory was the one that was most likely to beat him I'm not suggesting you should have, just wondering why it seemed like a binary decision." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think they would be like jumping from a frying pan into a huge pan of boiling tar. Sadly what we see is a Union led and funded party using their power with strikes to weaken government to put a high spend (as they always do) labour government. The war in the Ukraine has destabilised the political leaders in many countries. Mainland Europe is having a worse time with energy costs as many are dependent on Russia. Its a war and for national security what labour should be doing is finding a way to stabilise the current government by backing off and do something honest and see that destruction of the current government gives power to the red Russia and China who globally are successfully attacking democracy and political stability throughout the UK and the world. " Interesting choice of words “red Russia”! Do you think Russia is a communist (or even socialist) state? I disagree with you opening points. The chaos we are facing is Tory created and perpetuated. They are like a bunch of starving rats tied together in a bag. They are morally bankrupt and care nothing for the country or majority of citizens. All they care about is themselves ane clinging on to power. The markets agree. The UK is starting to look like a banana republic. Time for change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just my opinion.. it does not matter what party is in charge. The UK is a island with limited resources. It will be the same but under a different political optic " Limited resources yes, luckily not limited intelligence like the US. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just my opinion.. it does not matter what party is in charge. The UK is a island with limited resources. It will be the same but under a different political optic " The hope that some people have is that we get a party in government that will represent the interests of British people. At the moment, we have a government that looks after themselves and the corporations that donate money to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just my opinion.. it does not matter what party is in charge. The UK is a island with limited resources. It will be the same but under a different political optic Limited resources yes, luckily not limited intelligence like the US. " It's full of resources it's just that consecutive governments have chosen to stifle the ability to utilise said resources. How many farmers have used good farming land to grow products for the sole purpose of getting EU Grant's? Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land used to grow rxpeseed. Now it's solar farms and wind farms. Land that could be used to grow products for UK consumption rather than importing goods we can grow. Same goes for animals. Then there's the whole gas situation. UK government cave in to environmentalists to make themselves look good on the world stage preventing more north sea gas extraction and buy gas from abroad instead so they can say that they are doing their bit for the environment. Basically we are not doing the damage someone else is but it's ok to buy gas from them. They shut down coal mining and usage something that we could use today but once again the nimby's got involved. We have resources it's just that we are a country that seemingly cares more about what other countries think about us rather than looking after ourselves. Selfish maybe, necessary yes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just my opinion.. it does not matter what party is in charge. The UK is a island with limited resources. It will be the same but under a different political optic Limited resources yes, luckily not limited intelligence like the US. It's full of resources it's just that consecutive governments have chosen to stifle the ability to utilise said resources. How many farmers have used good farming land to grow products for the sole purpose of getting EU Grant's? Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land used to grow rxpeseed. Now it's solar farms and wind farms. Land that could be used to grow products for UK consumption rather than importing goods we can grow. Same goes for animals. Then there's the whole gas situation. UK government cave in to environmentalists to make themselves look good on the world stage preventing more north sea gas extraction and buy gas from abroad instead so they can say that they are doing their bit for the environment. Basically we are not doing the damage someone else is but it's ok to buy gas from them. They shut down coal mining and usage something that we could use today but once again the nimby's got involved. We have resources it's just that we are a country that seemingly cares more about what other countries think about us rather than looking after ourselves. Selfish maybe, necessary yes " What you think the government is doing, is what they should be doing. But sadly they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry, and do the absolute bare minimum on renewable energy. The UK has an abundance of resource to generate energy from hydro electric, wind and waves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just my opinion.. it does not matter what party is in charge. The UK is a island with limited resources. It will be the same but under a different political optic Limited resources yes, luckily not limited intelligence like the US. It's full of resources it's just that consecutive governments have chosen to stifle the ability to utilise said resources. How many farmers have used good farming land to grow products for the sole purpose of getting EU Grant's? Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land used to grow rxpeseed. Now it's solar farms and wind farms. Land that could be used to grow products for UK consumption rather than importing goods we can grow. Same goes for animals. Then there's the whole gas situation. UK government cave in to environmentalists to make themselves look good on the world stage preventing more north sea gas extraction and buy gas from abroad instead so they can say that they are doing their bit for the environment. Basically we are not doing the damage someone else is but it's ok to buy gas from them. They shut down coal mining and usage something that we could use today but once again the nimby's got involved. We have resources it's just that we are a country that seemingly cares more about what other countries think about us rather than looking after ourselves. Selfish maybe, necessary yes What you think the government is doing, is what they should be doing. But sadly they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry, and do the absolute bare minimum on renewable energy. The UK has an abundance of resource to generate energy from hydro electric, wind and waves. " Exactly we are surrounded by water and wind. Easily enough to power a large amount of the country,add the solar farms that the government seem to like funding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just my opinion.. it does not matter what party is in charge. The UK is a island with limited resources. It will be the same but under a different political optic Limited resources yes, luckily not limited intelligence like the US. It's full of resources it's just that consecutive governments have chosen to stifle the ability to utilise said resources. How many farmers have used good farming land to grow products for the sole purpose of getting EU Grant's? Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land used to grow rxpeseed. Now it's solar farms and wind farms. Land that could be used to grow products for UK consumption rather than importing goods we can grow. Same goes for animals. Then there's the whole gas situation. UK government cave in to environmentalists to make themselves look good on the world stage preventing more north sea gas extraction and buy gas from abroad instead so they can say that they are doing their bit for the environment. Basically we are not doing the damage someone else is but it's ok to buy gas from them. They shut down coal mining and usage something that we could use today but once again the nimby's got involved. We have resources it's just that we are a country that seemingly cares more about what other countries think about us rather than looking after ourselves. Selfish maybe, necessary yes What you think the government is doing, is what they should be doing. But sadly they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry, and do the absolute bare minimum on renewable energy. The UK has an abundance of resource to generate energy from hydro electric, wind and waves. Exactly we are surrounded by water and wind. Easily enough to power a large amount of the country,add the solar farms that the government seem to like funding." So back to the OP. Labours manifesto at the last GE had a lot about harnessing these resources. Their plans were more ambitious than the green party's plans. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just my opinion.. it does not matter what party is in charge. The UK is a island with limited resources. It will be the same but under a different political optic Limited resources yes, luckily not limited intelligence like the US. It's full of resources it's just that consecutive governments have chosen to stifle the ability to utilise said resources. How many farmers have used good farming land to grow products for the sole purpose of getting EU Grant's? Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land used to grow rxpeseed. Now it's solar farms and wind farms. Land that could be used to grow products for UK consumption rather than importing goods we can grow. Same goes for animals. Then there's the whole gas situation. UK government cave in to environmentalists to make themselves look good on the world stage preventing more north sea gas extraction and buy gas from abroad instead so they can say that they are doing their bit for the environment. Basically we are not doing the damage someone else is but it's ok to buy gas from them. They shut down coal mining and usage something that we could use today but once again the nimby's got involved. We have resources it's just that we are a country that seemingly cares more about what other countries think about us rather than looking after ourselves. Selfish maybe, necessary yes What you think the government is doing, is what they should be doing. But sadly they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry, and do the absolute bare minimum on renewable energy. The UK has an abundance of resource to generate energy from hydro electric, wind and waves. Exactly we are surrounded by water and wind. Easily enough to power a large amount of the country,add the solar farms that the government seem to like funding. So back to the OP. Labours manifesto at the last GE had a lot about harnessing these resources. Their plans were more ambitious than the green party's plans." But they had Corbyn at the helm and that was their undoing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just my opinion.. it does not matter what party is in charge. The UK is a island with limited resources. It will be the same but under a different political optic Limited resources yes, luckily not limited intelligence like the US. It's full of resources it's just that consecutive governments have chosen to stifle the ability to utilise said resources. How many farmers have used good farming land to grow products for the sole purpose of getting EU Grant's? Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land used to grow rxpeseed. Now it's solar farms and wind farms. Land that could be used to grow products for UK consumption rather than importing goods we can grow. Same goes for animals. Then there's the whole gas situation. UK government cave in to environmentalists to make themselves look good on the world stage preventing more north sea gas extraction and buy gas from abroad instead so they can say that they are doing their bit for the environment. Basically we are not doing the damage someone else is but it's ok to buy gas from them. They shut down coal mining and usage something that we could use today but once again the nimby's got involved. We have resources it's just that we are a country that seemingly cares more about what other countries think about us rather than looking after ourselves. Selfish maybe, necessary yes What you think the government is doing, is what they should be doing. But sadly they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry, and do the absolute bare minimum on renewable energy. The UK has an abundance of resource to generate energy from hydro electric, wind and waves. Exactly we are surrounded by water and wind. Easily enough to power a large amount of the country,add the solar farms that the government seem to like funding. So back to the OP. Labours manifesto at the last GE had a lot about harnessing these resources. Their plans were more ambitious than the green party's plans. But they had Corbyn at the helm and that was their undoing." The smear campaign against Corbyn was Labours undoing. His previous record in the election was good, he gained a lot of seats and support for the Labour party. As soon as the establishment say that, they destroyed him. Which is when I started taking an interest. But he's gone now, and we have SKS, so I don't know if he would be much better than the Tories on renewable energy. My assumption is that he can't be any worse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"SNP the only party as inept as the Tories and just as devious as well. Try getting a SNP mp to help you then see how out of their depth they truly are." I didn't have any problem with SNP MSP helping me out. I'm a life long labour voter who would never vote SNP... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"SNP the only party as inept as the Tories and just as devious as well. Try getting a SNP mp to help you then see how out of their depth they truly are. I didn't have any problem with SNP MSP helping me out. I'm a life long labour voter who would never vote SNP..." That's one of the problems we have. "I'm a lifelong Tory and won't ever vote Labour, I'm a lifelong Labour and won't ever vote Tory" etc etc ridiculous mentality in my opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. " Labour are a centre party. A trillion light years away from socialism or communism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. Labour are a centre party. A trillion light years away from socialism or communism. " Really... You scream against capitalism. You want more government involvement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. Labour are a centre party. A trillion light years away from socialism or communism. Really... You scream against capitalism. You want more government involvement." I don't scream, and I'm not against capitalism. And besides, what would that have to do with anything? Labour are a centre party. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. Labour are a centre party. A trillion light years away from socialism or communism. Really... You scream against capitalism. You want more government involvement." Exxon mobile turns a profit you lost you mind. Weird. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. Labour are a centre party. A trillion light years away from socialism or communism. Really... You scream against capitalism. You want more government involvement. Exxon mobile turns a profit you lost you mind. Weird. " What? I think you have me confused with someone else. Once again, this is completely unrelated to Labour being positioned in the centre politically. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. " the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards " as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Honestly? All there is left now is Red Labour, Blue Labour, Yellow Labour, and Green Labour. Maybe the odd Independant is right leaning but all the main parties lean left. What? Labour are centre, Tories are right, all the small parties are right. Greens are the only left leaning party." Plaid Cymru? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism." 
Oh, if only that were true! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. " I like your contributions, but you do have some very strange opinions. The labour party here really do sit in the centre ground of politics. This is based on their policies, their stance on economic, social, environmental etc issues. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mr Blobby would certainly be worse. That twat fucks up everything he touches." Bullshit Mr Blobby would be better | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mr Blobby would certainly be worse. That twat fucks up everything he touches. Bullshit Mr Blobby would be better " Hmmm he'd be less corrupt, to be fair. And more honest. You've won me around on that 1. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Observations we are more of a individual self reliant country are we not ? I just trying to understand the " Collective," train of thought.weird concept for me. " Just think of it as people caring for others in their community, and extending that out across the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mr Blobby would certainly be worse. That twat fucks up everything he touches. Bullshit Mr Blobby would be better Hmmm he'd be less corrupt, to be fair. And more honest. You've won me around on that 1." More coherent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder if Blu is thinking: who the hell is Mr Blobby? lol" He's a Communist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mr Blobby would certainly be worse. That twat fucks up everything he touches. Bullshit Mr Blobby would be better Hmmm he'd be less corrupt, to be fair. And more honest. You've won me around on that 1. More coherent." Blobby's speeches & Johnson's actually sound v similar, in a way. In fact... has any1 ever seen the two of them in the same room at the same time?! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. I like your contributions, but you do have some very strange opinions. The labour party here really do sit in the centre ground of politics. This is based on their policies, their stance on economic, social, environmental etc issues." Yet environment wise you are a tiny nation. You think the bigger ones are going to comply? Because of your hive mentality? No we will not.You can scream all you want . It will not change. We out number your train of thought. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. I like your contributions, but you do have some very strange opinions. The labour party here really do sit in the centre ground of politics. This is based on their policies, their stance on economic, social, environmental etc issues. Yet environment wise you are a tiny nation. You think the bigger ones are going to comply? Because of your hive mentality? No we will not.You can scream all you want . It will not change. We out number your train of thought." China outnumbers ours.. Ok let's have the UK force China to comply. Can you ? Nope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. " I think the big difference between the UK & the USA is size & space we live on a very small crowded island & are more interdependent there is not room for people to do their own thing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. I like your contributions, but you do have some very strange opinions. The labour party here really do sit in the centre ground of politics. This is based on their policies, their stance on economic, social, environmental etc issues. Yet environment wise you are a tiny nation. You think the bigger ones are going to comply? Because of your hive mentality? No we will not.You can scream all you want . It will not change. We out number your train of thought." You've lost me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. I like your contributions, but you do have some very strange opinions. The labour party here really do sit in the centre ground of politics. This is based on their policies, their stance on economic, social, environmental etc issues. Yet environment wise you are a tiny nation. You think the bigger ones are going to comply? Because of your hive mentality? No we will not.You can scream all you want . It will not change. We out number your train of thought. China outnumbers ours.. Ok let's have the UK force China to comply. Can you ? Nope." What's this got to do with the Labour party and your claim that they are borderline Communist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. I think the big difference between the UK & the USA is size & space we live on a very small crowded island & are more interdependent there is not room for people to do their own thing " Yet a once proud dominant nation I had respect for degraded to this squabbling BS. It's a shame. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. the labor party has moved away from socialism in recent years Kier Starmer is very right wing by British standards as a outsider I see the collective. The hive mentality. What can government do for me. Instant of self reliance. It's just a honest observation. I like your contributions, but you do have some very strange opinions. The labour party here really do sit in the centre ground of politics. This is based on their policies, their stance on economic, social, environmental etc issues. Yet environment wise you are a tiny nation. You think the bigger ones are going to comply? Because of your hive mentality? No we will not.You can scream all you want . It will not change. We out number your train of thought. You've lost me." lol good luck | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are some commonalities between ourselves and the US. However they are not exclusive to either state and our political culture is very different, thankfully. I often think of the terrible issues which blight our country and then I think of the United States and remember it could be worse. " Exactly .. people choose not government. We choose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are some commonalities between ourselves and the US. However they are not exclusive to either state and our political culture is very different, thankfully. I often think of the terrible issues which blight our country and then I think of the United States and remember it could be worse. Exactly .. people choose not government. We choose. we dont get a choice of leaders in the UK we have recently had a change of prime minister who we did not vote for & a change of monarch who we never vote for " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are some commonalities between ourselves and the US. However they are not exclusive to either state and our political culture is very different, thankfully. I often think of the terrible issues which blight our country and then I think of the United States and remember it could be worse. Exactly .. people choose not government. We choose. we dont get a choice of leaders in the UK we have recently had a change of prime minister who we did not vote for & a change of monarch who we never vote for " yet to some we are the villains. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are some commonalities between ourselves and the US. However they are not exclusive to either state and our political culture is very different, thankfully. I often think of the terrible issues which blight our country and then I think of the United States and remember it could be worse. Exactly .. people choose not government. We choose. we dont get a choice of leaders in the UK we have recently had a change of prime minister who we did not vote for & a change of monarch who we never vote for " The 2nd PM in a row the general voting public got no say in. Spiffing, eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Curiosity... How would labour change everyone's quality of life ? " Hopefully they would collect more tax from the rich who evade tax at the moment & spend it on better public health care most people in the UK can not afford to go private | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Curiosity... How would labour change everyone's quality of life ? Hopefully they would collect more tax from the rich who evade tax at the moment & spend it on better public health care most people in the UK can not afford to go private " Hopefully they'd also be less interested in stoking culture wars & actually may work on eg resolving strikes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I know there are some very committed supporters of the blue team on here, who are very anti the red team. They will cite various historical reasons and double down when challenged on the performance of the blues these past 12 years. But really, would the red team be any worse right now? Isn’t it time the blue team stepped aside to put a stop to the chaos and regroup and totally reconsider what it means to be blue and who is the right fit for a team following that vision. Shouldn’t the red team be given their chance now? Will they really be any worse? Could anyone be worse?" No would just a shower of shit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Curiosity... How would labour change everyone's quality of life ? Hopefully they would collect more tax from the rich who evade tax at the moment & spend it on better public health care most people in the UK can not afford to go private " I love my healthcare I have no issues because I self reliant. Yet I make 4 times in my profession compared to my UK counterparts. My family is secure because of that. I am self reliant am I not ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I know there are some very committed supporters of the blue team on here, who are very anti the red team. They will cite various historical reasons and double down when challenged on the performance of the blues these past 12 years. But really, would the red team be any worse right now? Isn’t it time the blue team stepped aside to put a stop to the chaos and regroup and totally reconsider what it means to be blue and who is the right fit for a team following that vision. Shouldn’t the red team be given their chance now? Will they really be any worse? Could anyone be worse? No would just a shower of shit " Is that 1 of your kinks? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Curiosity... How would labour change everyone's quality of life ? Hopefully they would collect more tax from the rich who evade tax at the moment & spend it on better public health care most people in the UK can not afford to go private I love my healthcare I have no issues because I self reliant. Yet I make 4 times in my profession compared to my UK counterparts. My family is secure because of that. I am self reliant am I not ? " I see people screaming over housing energy and other issues. Yet alot of people want government control. No matter if it effects other people's quality of life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is labor the all ending fabulous party everyone should embrace ? " No party is that. But Labour is an alternative to a toxic government that has been screwing this country over for 13 years now. A change is desperately needed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I know there are some very committed supporters of the blue team on here, who are very anti the red team. They will cite various historical reasons and double down when challenged on the performance of the blues these past 12 years. But really, would the red team be any worse right now? Isn’t it time the blue team stepped aside to put a stop to the chaos and regroup and totally reconsider what it means to be blue and who is the right fit for a team following that vision. Shouldn’t the red team be given their chance now? Will they really be any worse? Could anyone be worse?" Unless Keir Starmer were to shoot puppies out of a cannon into a mincing machine, while James Blunt, naked and being fellated by Prince Andrew, is singing "My humps", it's hard to see how he could be worse than the current government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I know there are some very committed supporters of the blue team on here, who are very anti the red team. They will cite various historical reasons and double down when challenged on the performance of the blues these past 12 years. But really, would the red team be any worse right now? Isn’t it time the blue team stepped aside to put a stop to the chaos and regroup and totally reconsider what it means to be blue and who is the right fit for a team following that vision. Shouldn’t the red team be given their chance now? Will they really be any worse? Could anyone be worse? Unless Keir Starmer were to shoot puppies out of a cannon into a mincing machine, while James Blunt, naked and being fellated by Prince Andrew, is singing "My humps", it's hard to see how he could be worse than the current government." Well I'm gonna have some graphic nightmares tonight | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is labor the all ending fabulous party everyone should embrace ? No party is that. But Labour is an alternative to a toxic government that has been screwing this country over for 13 years now. A change is desperately needed." are you sure that labour is the answer to your assumptions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is labor the all ending fabulous party everyone should embrace ? No party is that. But Labour is an alternative to a toxic government that has been screwing this country over for 13 years now. A change is desperately needed. are you sure that labour is the answer to your assumptions?" Of course I'm not sure. But I am 100% sure the Tories have been awful for this country. So a change is worth trying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Curiosity... How would labour change everyone's quality of life ? Hopefully they would collect more tax from the rich who evade tax at the moment & spend it on better public health care most people in the UK can not afford to go private I love my healthcare I have no issues because I self reliant. Yet I make 4 times in my profession compared to my UK counterparts. My family is secure because of that. I am self reliant am I not ? " Should you lose your job (I hope you don't) you have no safety net. People here do. Or at least have more of one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. " Good to see people still blaming Labour after 12 years of Tory rule.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. " Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? " Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that?" Not sure about other unions but RMT members have no say where their subscription goes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that?" Yes, by leaving the union. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. " The the trope that keeps on giving! I wonder why public finances were challenging in 2010? Hmmm could it have been the financial crash in 2008? The one enabled by the deregulation of the financial markets championed by the Conservatives? The whole “no money” thing is actually a myth (and was a bad taste joke note by Liam Byrne). The UK Govt could, and did, borrow money in the form of issuing bonds/gilts. The deficit (the difference between what govt spends and collects in tax) had grown due to the recession caused by the financial crash. It meant the govt therefore needed to borrow more in the short term to ride out the recession. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. " So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business." The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members, "And politicians are voted in by their constituents. That argument doesn't quite work either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either."Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation . "Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'"Yes, really, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really, "Would this be based on the individual union, or are all unions managed the same way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really, "That's great. But, it doesn't answer my question. Do members get a vote on where the money is spent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
Would this be based on the individual union, or are all unions managed the same way?"I've since looked it up (I didn't initially). Members can give notice to cancel their 'political fun' contribution. I believe this is a Govt policy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?"If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?
If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out "That still doesn't answer the question. What if I want my money to go to The Greens? Or Lib Dems? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
Would this be based on the individual union, or are all unions managed the same way?"All unions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?
If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out
That still doesn't answer the question.
What if I want my money to go to The Greens? Or Lib Dems?"Then use the money you ‘saved’ by opting out of the union and donate it to the greens or very simply, don’t join the union | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?
If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out
That still doesn't answer the question.
What if I want my money to go to The Greens? Or Lib Dems?
Then use the money you ‘saved’ by opting out of the union and donate it to the greens or very simply, don’t join the union "So the answer is, as a collective, no they don't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?
If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out
That still doesn't answer the question.
What if I want my money to go to The Greens? Or Lib Dems?
Then use the money you ‘saved’ by opting out of the union and donate it to the greens or very simply, don’t join the union
So the answer is, as a collective, no they don't "Why would they need a ‘vote’? You ether pay for the service off a union and contribute to the Labour Party funds, or you opt out, or you join a union that isn’t affiliated with labour, or you don’t join any union, simple | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?
If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out
That still doesn't answer the question.
What if I want my money to go to The Greens? Or Lib Dems?
Then use the money you ‘saved’ by opting out of the union and donate it to the greens or very simply, don’t join the union
So the answer is, as a collective, no they don't
Why would they need a ‘vote’? You ether pay for the service off a union and contribute to the Labour Party funds, or you opt out, or you join a union that isn’t affiliated with labour, or you don’t join any union, simple "Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. I love this 'if you don't like it, leave' attitude | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?
If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out
That still doesn't answer the question.
What if I want my money to go to The Greens? Or Lib Dems?
Then use the money you ‘saved’ by opting out of the union and donate it to the greens or very simply, don’t join the union
So the answer is, as a collective, no they don't
Why would they need a ‘vote’? You ether pay for the service off a union and contribute to the Labour Party funds, or you opt out, or you join a union that isn’t affiliated with labour, or you don’t join any union, simple
Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits.
I love this 'if you don't like it, leave' attitude "Then opt of the paying or join a different union | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?
If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out
That still doesn't answer the question.
What if I want my money to go to The Greens? Or Lib Dems?
Then use the money you ‘saved’ by opting out of the union and donate it to the greens or very simply, don’t join the union
So the answer is, as a collective, no they don't
Why would they need a ‘vote’? You ether pay for the service off a union and contribute to the Labour Party funds, or you opt out, or you join a union that isn’t affiliated with labour, or you don’t join any union, simple
Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits.
I love this 'if you don't like it, leave' attitude
Then opt of the paying or join a different union "Cheers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. The ‘suits’ at the top of unions are voted in place by its members,
And politicians are voted in by their constituents.
That argument doesn't quite work either.
Individual union members can ‘opt out’ of paying into a unions political fund which is used to finance the affiliation .
Really? I've had one reply saying they can't and another saying 'if you don't like it, leave'
Yes, really,
That's great.
But, it doesn't answer my question.
Do members get a vote on where the money is spent?
If you don’t want to pay towards the Labour Party you can opt out
That still doesn't answer the question.
What if I want my money to go to The Greens? Or Lib Dems?
Then use the money you ‘saved’ by opting out of the union and donate it to the greens or very simply, don’t join the union
So the answer is, as a collective, no they don't
Why would they need a ‘vote’? You ether pay for the service off a union and contribute to the Labour Party funds, or you opt out, or you join a union that isn’t affiliated with labour, or you don’t join any union, simple
Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits.
I love this 'if you don't like it, leave' attitude
Then opt of the paying or join a different union
Cheers " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government." Have you ever been in a union? It's extrenely difficult to get a strike, or any kind of industrial action. I don't know many "unions" (by which you seem to mean the administrative managers in the public eye, not the voting members) who encourage strikes very often at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. Have you ever been in a union? It's extrenely difficult to get a strike, or any kind of industrial action. I don't know many "unions" (by which you seem to mean the administrative managers in the public eye, not the voting members) who encourage strikes very often at all. " People also forget that members are not paid their salary when they are on strike | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits." You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People also forget that members are not paid their salary when they are on strike " I had this discussion with someone yesterday, suggesting teachers just wanted a day off! People really do just believe whatever they are told.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People also forget that members are not paid their salary when they are on strike I had this discussion with someone yesterday, suggesting teachers just wanted a day off! People really do just believe whatever they are told. "Yep, going on strike is a last resort | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument." Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits." The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members " As I said previously, so are MPs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. " We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world "We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this. As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders."‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’ "Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago"Business ‘suits’ who are elected by shareholders are there to make profit , unions ‘ suits ‘ who are elected by members are there to provide a service, MPs who are elected by the electorate are there to work for their constituents , different aims | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago
Business ‘suits’ who are elected by shareholders are there to make profit , unions ‘ suits ‘ who are elected by members are there to provide a service, MPs who are elected by the electorate are there to work for their constituents , different aims "Correct. The point is, all are elected. You're argument is union bosses are elected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago
Business ‘suits’ who are elected by shareholders are there to make profit , unions ‘ suits ‘ who are elected by members are there to provide a service, MPs who are elected by the electorate are there to work for their constituents , different aims
Correct. The point is, all are elected.
You're argument is union bosses are elected."‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’ My argument is that they are better more accountable , have different aims and are not the same and members have a say | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago
Business ‘suits’ who are elected by shareholders are there to make profit , unions ‘ suits ‘ who are elected by members are there to provide a service, MPs who are elected by the electorate are there to work for their constituents , different aims
Correct. The point is, all are elected.
You're argument is union bosses are elected.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
My argument is that they are better more accountable , have different aims and are not the same and members have a say "You've already told me it's 'if you don't like it, leave' Come on.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago
Business ‘suits’ who are elected by shareholders are there to make profit , unions ‘ suits ‘ who are elected by members are there to provide a service, MPs who are elected by the electorate are there to work for their constituents , different aims
Correct. The point is, all are elected.
You're argument is union bosses are elected.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
My argument is that they are better more accountable , have different aims and are not the same and members have a say
You've already told me it's 'if you don't like it, leave'
Come on...."Unions provide a service, if you don’t require the service don’t join | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago
Business ‘suits’ who are elected by shareholders are there to make profit , unions ‘ suits ‘ who are elected by members are there to provide a service, MPs who are elected by the electorate are there to work for their constituents , different aims
Correct. The point is, all are elected.
You're argument is union bosses are elected.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
My argument is that they are better more accountable , have different aims and are not the same and members have a say
You've already told me it's 'if you don't like it, leave'
Come on....
Unions provide a service, if you don’t require the service don’t join "I'm already a member but the bosses just decided to switch allegiance without consultation  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago
Business ‘suits’ who are elected by shareholders are there to make profit , unions ‘ suits ‘ who are elected by members are there to provide a service, MPs who are elected by the electorate are there to work for their constituents , different aims
Correct. The point is, all are elected.
You're argument is union bosses are elected.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
My argument is that they are better more accountable , have different aims and are not the same and members have a say
You've already told me it's 'if you don't like it, leave'
Come on....
Unions provide a service, if you don’t require the service don’t join
I'm already a member but the bosses just decided to switch allegiance without consultation "That’s never happened | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trade unions are a broad church. People are entitled to be in them and disagree with planned strike action. They're in the minority in this case but some refuse to strike out of an admirable sense of duty. They should not be hounded out of the Labour movement. Others may not support strike action for other reasons but they are as entitled to union membership as anyone else." Exactly, like I have stated, they provide a service, open to all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The economy is so fucked that whoever wins the next election will have a huge job on their hands and tough decisions to make. However, I am hopeful that if it is not a Conservative government, then we will be able to sweep away a significant chunk of the corruption and cronyism. We may get to finally see the Russia Report. We may see a real effort to tackle non-payment/collection of tax (remove Non-Dom, close loopholes allowing tax haven holding companies being paid IP/Royalty payments that falsely indicate UK operations are loss making) and that increases tax take will help address deficit issues." Labour are not great but they will be an improvement on this current Tory government, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why wouldn't I want a say as to which party my money funds? Maybe I want to be part of the union but my politics doesn't align with the suits. You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument. Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. The ‘suits’ at the top of the union are democratically elected by its members, they work for the members As I said previously, so are MPs. We are not talking about MPs, you are comparing ‘suits’ at the top of unions with suits from the business world
We are talking about MPs, threads move, you know this.
As for suits in business, board members tend to be elected by shareholders.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
Yep. I also mentioned politicians over 2 hours ago
Business ‘suits’ who are elected by shareholders are there to make profit , unions ‘ suits ‘ who are elected by members are there to provide a service, MPs who are elected by the electorate are there to work for their constituents , different aims
Correct. The point is, all are elected.
You're argument is union bosses are elected.
‘I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business’
My argument is that they are better more accountable , have different aims and are not the same and members have a say
You've already told me it's 'if you don't like it, leave'
Come on....
Unions provide a service, if you don’t require the service don’t join
I'm already a member but the bosses just decided to switch allegiance without consultation
That’s never happened "It's possible though, isn't it? And members would have no say. That's the whole point. You can continue to argue your case, it doesn't mean I have to agree with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As much as I hate Tories (and I do) I feel a Labour Government would be much worse running the country. Just have to look at the Labour London Mayor as an example" Well said | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument.' Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits." I really don't think you are grasping how unions work? And I don't mean that as a dig. But, yes, you have created an almost perfect example of a strawman argument. So, what you seem to be asking is can you individually as part of a collective decide individually where you as part of a collective give your individual money? How would you even imagine that working administratively? A union - which simply means the workers who unify to create that collective - cannot on a whim decide to give their money to another party. It's actually hugely difficult to do something like that. And it's certainly not a decision taken by a committee. When you join a union, you can decide if you want part of your money to go towards that union's affilated political party or not. (If you don't, don't. However, anyone joining a union merely to better serve their individual ends has perhaps missed the point.) I'm curious who you imagine these "suits" at the "top" of a union to be. I presume you're talking about those who publicly represent the members of the union and carry out their voted actions? - Jack (former UNISON steward) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm already a member but the bosses just decided to switch allegiance without consultation
"That’s never happened "
It's possible though, isn't it?"No. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. " 100 % correct! The Labour Party have socialism running right through them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a outsider I would think labor would be worse. I read the posts and comments. Labour there is too extremely socialistic border line communism. 100 % correct! The Labour Party have socialism running right through them " Amazing. I can't imagine what it's like having really strong opinions on something, yet not even doing the most basic level of research, even for five minutes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. " Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'You can give your money to any party you want. You're creating a rather flimsy strawman argument.' Of course I can, individually, not as a collective. If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that. My choices are withdraw funding, which I must give notice for or leave the union. I haven't created any argument here let alone a 'strawman'. Imo, the suits at the top of unions are no better than any other suits. I really don't think you are grasping how unions work? And I don't mean that as a dig. But, yes, you have created an almost perfect example of a strawman argument. So, what you seem to be asking is can you individually as part of a collective decide individually where you as part of a collective give your individual money? How would you even imagine that working administratively? A union - which simply means the workers who unify to create that collective - cannot on a whim decide to give their money to another party. It's actually hugely difficult to do something like that. And it's certainly not a decision taken by a committee. When you join a union, you can decide if you want part of your money to go towards that union's affilated political party or not. (If you don't, don't. However, anyone joining a union merely to better serve their individual ends has perhaps missed the point.) I'm curious who you imagine these "suits" at the "top" of a union to be. I presume you're talking about those who publicly represent the members of the union and carry out their voted actions? - Jack (former UNISON steward) " If you want to argue its strawman, that's cool but all I did was ask a question to which I've had 3 different answers. You're the first to actually address the question posed rather than 'if you don't like it, leave' So... You're first question. No I'm not asking that. I'm asking, do members Aas a collective have a say in how their funds are spent? If Unison wanted to donate 1m to Labour and 100k to LD, would that be put to members? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10" They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years "Correction, Tories 15 years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm asking, do members Aas a collective have a say in how their funds are spent? If Unison wanted to donate 1m to Labour and 100k to LD, would that be put to members?" No, the union would not have the time or resources to ask all of its members to vote on specific amounts of money. Yet... UNISON is an "affiliated" union to the Labour Party. And when you considre that the Labour Party grew out of the Trade Union movement (not the other way round), I guess that makes sense. So, I would consider that it is illegal for a union to be affiliated to two different political parties. Just to provide some inside member insight, it can be frustrating to feel like the union you are a part of are not doing anything. And that is often because they have over a million members and do have to poll them nationally and regionally on a whole range of issues and actions. Yet, it would obviously be logistically impossible for them to poll on the specific implemention of every single issue or action members vote for. They have to actually do something at the end of the day! FYI, your question is still asking, 'do members as a collective have an individual say in how their funds are spent?' I get where you are coming from, but there's an inherent confusion in your question. A union is - by its very nature - not an individualistic organisation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10" Curious. Why are you so anti Labour? You are too young to remember the 1970s and the period 1997-2007 was a book period. Have you personally done really well out of having a Conservative govt since 2010 (am including coalition)? If so do you honestly think you would not have done so well in that time if it had been a Labour govt? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years "Since 1915 ish there have been 28 general elections. Labour have won 8 that is rarely in government | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years
Since 1915 ish there have been 28 general elections. Labour have won 8 that is rarely in government "You’re living in the past | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years
Since 1915 ish there have been 28 general elections. Labour have won 8 that is rarely in government
Your living in the past "You just referenced the past.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years
Since 1915 ish there have been 28 general elections. Labour have won 8 that is rarely in government
Your living in the past
You just referenced the past.."My life time, btw, how many conservative majority governments have there been since 1915 ish ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 Curious. Why are you so anti Labour? You are too young to remember the 1970s and the period 1997-2007 was a book period. Have you personally done really well out of having a Conservative govt since 2010 (am including coalition)? If so do you honestly think you would not have done so well in that time if it had been a Labour govt?" Oops *boom period. Bloody little iphone keyboard | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years
Since 1915 ish there have been 28 general elections. Labour have won 8 that is rarely in government
Your living in the past
You just referenced the past..
My life time, btw, how many conservative majority governments have there been since 1915 ish ? "17 I think | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm asking, do members Aas a collective have a say in how their funds are spent? If Unison wanted to donate 1m to Labour and 100k to LD, would that be put to members? No, the union would not have the time or resources to ask all of its members to vote on specific amounts of money. Yet... UNISON is an "affiliated" union to the Labour Party. And when you considre that the Labour Party grew out of the Trade Union movement (not the other way round), I guess that makes sense. So, I would consider that it is illegal for a union to be affiliated to two different political parties. Just to provide some inside member insight, it can be frustrating to feel like the union you are a part of are not doing anything. And that is often because they have over a million members and do have to poll them nationally and regionally on a whole range of issues and actions. Yet, it would obviously be logistically impossible for them to poll on the specific implemention of every single issue or action members vote for. They have to actually do something at the end of the day! FYI, your question is still asking, 'do members as a collective have an individual say in how their funds are spent?' I get where you are coming from, but there's an inherent confusion in your question. A union is - by its very nature - not an individualistic organisation. " Your better than the others, I'll give you that. You say you 'would consider it illegal for 2 different political affiliations', is that actual or just your thoughts? As for 'don't have time', that just isn't good enough I'm afraid. Do you think if the union are frustrating their members because they have too many of them, then in actual fact, their 'too big' and aren't fulfilling their purpose? As for your paragraph, at no point have I mentioned individuals. I continually said 'members' or 'collective', it would be much appreciated if you didn't try to twist my words. It really would because my initial question was borne out of wanting education rather than argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years
Since 1915 ish there have been 28 general elections. Labour have won 8 that is rarely in government
Your living in the past
You just referenced the past..
My life time, btw, how many conservative majority governments have there been since 1915 ish ?
17 I think "They have won a majority in 13 elections, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years
Since 1915 ish there have been 28 general elections. Labour have won 8 that is rarely in government
Your living in the past
You just referenced the past..
My life time, btw, how many conservative majority governments have there been since 1915 ish ?
17 I think
They have won a majority in 13 elections, "Really only 13? Thought it was higher than that but what would I know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Very well said! And thankfully this is why they are rarely in No 10 They have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years out of the last 35 (my age) , the tories have had a ‘majority’ government for 13 years
Since 1915 ish there have been 28 general elections. Labour have won 8 that is rarely in government
Your living in the past
You just referenced the past..
My life time, btw, how many conservative majority governments have there been since 1915 ish ?
17 I think
They have won a majority in 13 elections,
Really only 13? Thought it was higher than that but what would I know "Yep, anyway, the only election that is currently relevant is the last one until the next one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your better than the others, I'll give you that. You say you 'would consider it illegal for 2 different political affiliations', is that actual or just your thoughts? As for 'don't have time', that just isn't good enough I'm afraid. Do you think if the union are frustrating their members because they have too many of them, then in actual fact, their 'too big' and aren't fulfilling their purpose? As for your paragraph, at no point have I mentioned individuals. I continually said 'members' or 'collective', it would be much appreciated if you didn't try to twist my words. It really would because my initial question was borne out of wanting education rather than argument." I'm not sure what you mean by better, but thanks. My 'wouldn't consider' statement was me commenting on how things were when I was a union rep, without taking the time to check the current law. I'm confident that is still the case, but couldn't be arsed to check and did not want to overstate the case. Of course 'don't have time' is 'good enough.' It's also just reality. No, they're not too big. If unions are not big then they are pointless and powerless. It's precisely by being big that unions have had the dramatic impact on the British workforce that they have over the years. I couldn't be less interested in an argument, so have no desire to twist anyone's words. For context, the original question was: 'If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that.' You can ask a different question now, if you want, but that is clearly asking about you as an individual. No twisting of words on my part. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your better than the others, I'll give you that. You say you 'would consider it illegal for 2 different political affiliations', is that actual or just your thoughts? As for 'don't have time', that just isn't good enough I'm afraid. Do you think if the union are frustrating their members because they have too many of them, then in actual fact, their 'too big' and aren't fulfilling their purpose? As for your paragraph, at no point have I mentioned individuals. I continually said 'members' or 'collective', it would be much appreciated if you didn't try to twist my words. It really would because my initial question was borne out of wanting education rather than argument. I'm not sure what you mean by better, but thanks. My 'wouldn't consider' statement was me commenting on how things were when I was a union rep, without taking the time to check the current law. I'm confident that is still the case, but couldn't be arsed to check and did not want to overstate the case. Of course 'don't have time' is 'good enough.' It's also just reality. No, they're not too big. If unions are not big then they are pointless and powerless. It's precisely by being big that unions have had the dramatic impact on the British workforce that they have over the years. I couldn't be less interested in an argument, so have no desire to twist anyone's words. For context, the original question was: 'If I my union supports Labour with my funds but then suddenly the committee decided they're giving money to another party, I have no say in that.' You can ask a different question now, if you want, but that is clearly asking about you as an individual. No twisting of words on my part." So as far as you're aware, it is the case that it's law? That's good enough for me. I understand unions have power due to the size of them but if they genuinely don't have time to look after members then they need more staff or they're too big. Just my opinion obviously. My original question was not what you've quoted. I asked plenty before that, I'll agree in that particular quote I used 'I' and 'MY', they're easily changed to 'WE' and 'OUR', it doesn't affect the answer. As said before, I'm happy to be educated, unfortunately there were posters before yourself who didn't quite give 'sound answers' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So as far as you're aware, it is the case that it's law? That's good enough for me." Yeah, it was the law. And I presume it still is, but I can't say that with 100% certainty. "I understand unions have power due to the size of them but if they genuinely don't have time to look after members then they need more staff or they're too big. Just my opinion obviously." To clarify, unions will have local and regional offices which would focus on more local issues. And most workplaces would have a union rep/steward who can work with individuals (e.g. in tribunals, appeals, advice etc.) However, obviously as the issues get bigger and more national then individual opinion and nuance takes second place to the collective desire. When I spoke of 'frustration,' I was thinking of things at the higher end of the regional level. I've known workplaces where they wanted to strike there and then and it can be frustrating to go through ballot after ballot getting as much detail as possible on what people want to do - and how. And then going from local to regional, then checking with the legal offices, confirming with national legal etc. etc. At the end of the day, I'm not sure any of the workers would have actually wanted it to be any differernt - they are safguards, after all. Not sure it that clarifies? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So as far as you're aware, it is the case that it's law? That's good enough for me. Yeah, it was the law. And I presume it still is, but I can't say that with 100% certainty. I understand unions have power due to the size of them but if they genuinely don't have time to look after members then they need more staff or they're too big. Just my opinion obviously. To clarify, unions will have local and regional offices which would focus on more local issues. And most workplaces would have a union rep/steward who can work with individuals (e.g. in tribunals, appeals, advice etc.) However, obviously as the issues get bigger and more national then individual opinion and nuance takes second place to the collective desire. When I spoke of 'frustration,' I was thinking of things at the higher end of the regional level. I've known workplaces where they wanted to strike there and then and it can be frustrating to go through ballot after ballot getting as much detail as possible on what people want to do - and how. And then going from local to regional, then checking with the legal offices, confirming with national legal etc. etc. At the end of the day, I'm not sure any of the workers would have actually wanted it to be any differernt - they are safguards, after all. Not sure it that clarifies?" It certainly helps. I've never been near a union myself so having someone with inside knowledge is great learning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business." That’s simply not true and you really are delusional if you think it is. Political parties receive support from donors who want something in return. Billionaires and oligarchs want their cash protected and want governance that enables them to make even more money from the physical and Human Resources available. Unions and ordinary workers want a society that is fair, equal and rewarding. Any union member that does not want to contribute to a political party can very easily leave the union. People have rights now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The current government has had to deal with the mess Labour left the country in (remember the note left at the treasury) and then a pandemic and then a war that's effected fuel and grain costs. The issues are Labour are funded by unions who in turn are creating more issues by encouraging strikes thus attacking the government. (How many unions actually give money to any other party than Labour?) Increasing wages will drive inflation that will increase interest rates. Whilst people think a Labour government is going to wave a magic wand trust me it will be more pain than you can imagine. Yes Labour are funded by ordinary working people. We the people are Labourers, we ordinary people are the workforce that makes this country tick. A political party that is funded by ordinary people is far more transparent than a party funded by billionaires and oligarchs. Ask yourself whose side are you on? Do Union members get a vote on where their membership subs go? ie. If unison want to donate 1m to the Labour Party, can members object to that? Yes, by leaving the union. So in actual fact they aren't funded by ordinary working people? I'd buy that argument if the members had a say. But the suits at the top of unions are no better than the suits at the top of business. That’s simply not true and you really are delusional if you think it is. Political parties receive support from donors who want something in return. Billionaires and oligarchs want their cash protected and want governance that enables them to make even more money from the physical and Human Resources available. Unions and ordinary workers want a society that is fair, equal and rewarding. Any union member that does not want to contribute to a political party can very easily leave the union. People have rights now." It simply is true if i believe that. We can disagree and you can call me delusional but it doesn't change the fact that I think they're the same. I do find the 'leave if you don't like it' funny though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
