Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    Unions are powerful special interests organisations, rich blokes are just blokes with a bit of money. That rich bloke can say "Do this or I walk", the party loses a bit of money but one man can only do so much, whereas the union can say "Do this or several million people walk out of their jobs next week". There's a reason why unions exist: because "collective bargaining" is more powerful than "every man for himself". That party loses money (more money than the rich bloke can offer in all likelihood) and suffers a severe economic hit, a logistics disaster and a potential PR cockup if the public is on the union's side. Rich and powerful unions are more rich and powerful than generic rich blokes. I'm not saying either is good, but I have to make a compromise somewhere and that's where I cut it off. I would say no to union funding, no to business funding, no to any sort of collective funding. But a big yes to the individual.
    Ray has beaten me to this, but this sounds really biased compared with your other arguments. The idea that rich blokes are "just rich blokes" is ridiculous, do you honestly not think they buy influence? Fracking certainly comes to mind.

    Also, who are you referring to, the government or the party? Unions can threaten to cancel funding to Labour if they don't get their way but that isn't going to affect the current RL government now is it?

    Also, I'll second Ray's point about representation. Representing workers = immoral but representing your own interests = fair game?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not. Why on this Earth should the limit for one individual be the same as the limit for an organisation representing sometimes millions of people? And what exactly gives you the right to dictate to unions how they spend money members have voluntarily given to them? If people don't want their money being given to a party, then they'll stop contributing to that union or opt out of the fund, it's that simple. I can see the logic of stopping rich individuals from having a disproportionate influence on the eventual outcome of elections, but ordinary people coming together and spending their time and hard-earned money on a cause for which they are passionate is one of the most democratic things we could have.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    One man (Sir Hintz)...
    Please get his name right, it's Sir Hintze with an 'E' :fuhrer:

    Is there an issue with his £1.5 million gift to the Conservative party? He has donated roughly £4-5 million anyway so where's the harm in throwing a million more into the pot, I'd say that you're a capitalism hater, can't stand that people have made a lot of money, so much money that they can outdo a dreadful union in terms of funding their part of choice.

    As for whether or not Jarred was kicking the Labour Party in the *******s, I can't say for certain that was his goal however it is mine
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I've just reread the unions bit, I thought that figure was per member. It's a clear no then.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The point Jarred was making is that with rich people if they say 'do this or else' you can just tell them to walk and get the money somewhere else. However with Unions they can say 'do this or millions strike'. The party has to do what they say to avoid suffering losing 10+ rich blokes worth of money and a massive PR disaster.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, this seems a good way of raking in cash for real-life UKIP at the expense of others. The Greens have parliamentary presence and would receive nothing yet UKIP would due to having an arbitrary number of MEPs, who as far as UKIP are concerned, we should not have. That stinks to high heaven of hypocrisy.

    Furthermore, a £7500 maximum donation equates to 28.3% of the average salary, which is skewed upwards due to being a mean with astronomically high earners included. Practically, that is likely to represent a figure approaching 40% of Joe Blogg's gross earnings, over 50% when tax is removed. This is scandalous when so many people in an OECD, G7 country have to spend over 10% of their income to keep themselves warm.

    Therefore, I'd call for a much stricter limit of £1000 for individual donations, which should be about 5% of Joe Blogg's net salary; ensuring no one person or elite group of people has disproportionate influence- if Joe Bloggs really wanted, he could have financial influence on a par with a member of the landed gentry.

    Finally, what do you mean by organisation. Would groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which isn't on a par with the National Trust in terms of official recognition, be included?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Ray has beaten me to this, but this sounds really biased compared with your other arguments. The idea that rich blokes are "just rich blokes" is ridiculous, do you honestly not think they buy influence? Fracking certainly comes to mind.

    Also, who are you referring to, the government or the party? Unions can threaten to cancel funding to Labour if they don't get their way but that isn't going to affect the current RL government now is it?

    Also, I'll second Ray's point about representation. Representing workers = immoral but representing your own interests = fair game?
    Crypto has summed up my point better than I ever will.

    It's funny how gross corruption becomes "representation" when it conforms to your agenda. You're basically saying that it's fine for unions to hold parties and their governments at ransom because those unions represent workers. So what? It's just as damaging as big business holding government to ransom. We're talking about extremely large and powerful groups, one represents workers and the other represents shareholders. Other than that, there is no difference - they are both out for their own financial gain and we must never forget that. To me sitting here on £57.35 a week it doesn't make a damn difference, both are groups looking to screw me over for their own interests. Why should either have a finger in the government pie? What benefits one group of people does not benefit everyone. I don't usually use the phrase "level playing field" but it's what I'm trying to demonstrate here in that I don't want any special interests groups funding parties and buying their way into government no matter how moral or immoral you and I think any of them are, because it upsets that balance.

    But I still believe that we all as individuals have a right to political participation and I think funding causes you believe in, be it charity or politics, is a part of that. Rich blokes funding parties is an unwanted but unavoidable consequence of it all. I've never promised to create a perfect world, but I think it is at least a marginal improvement on what we have now with a consortium of strong and unbeatable special interests groups influencing policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    Crypto has summed up my point better than I ever will.

    It's funny how gross corruption becomes "representation" when it conforms to your agenda. You're basically saying that it's fine for unions to hold parties and their governments at ransom because those unions represent workers. So what? It's just as damaging as big business holding government to ransom. We're talking about extremely large and powerful groups, one represents workers and the other represents shareholders. Other than that, there is no difference - they are both out for their own financial gain and we must never forget that. To me sitting here on £57.35 a week it doesn't make a damn difference, both are groups looking to screw me over for their own interests. Why should either have a finger in the government pie? What benefits one group of people does not benefit everyone. I don't usually use the phrase "level playing field" but it's what I'm trying to demonstrate here in that I don't want any special interests groups funding parties and buying their way into government no matter how moral or immoral you and I think any of them are, because it upsets that balance.

    But I still believe that we all as individuals have a right to political participation and I think funding causes you believe in, be it charity or politics, is a part of that. Rich blokes funding parties is an unwanted but unavoidable consequence of it all. I've never promised to create a perfect world, but I think it is at least a marginal improvement on what we have now with a consortium of strong and unbeatable special interests groups influencing policy.
    Difference is that democracy is meant to be about giving representation to the masses - such as those who join trade unions - rather than the wealthy few.

    Don't know if you've heard about United Community Membership either? It's a scheme where they are extending membership and representation to people not traditionally part of the trade union movement, such as the unemployed, students and pensioners
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Love the notion that unions are innocent bodies. While I'm sure many are well intentioned one only has to look at the NUT, Unite and the one Bob Crow led to see blatantly political hatred and the interest of the unions being put ahead the interest of the members (Grangemouth, the miners going further back).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Love the notion that unions are innocent bodies. While I'm sure many are well intentioned one only has to look at the NUT, Unite and the one Bob Crow led to see blatantly political hatred and the interest of the unions being put ahead the interest of the members (Grangemouth, the miners going further back).
    Much as I completely agree with you that the current strikes in particular have been fairly ridiculous, if they didn't represent their members' interests the members would leave. There are less radical teaching unions, for instance.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    Crypto has summed up my point better than I ever will.

    It's funny how gross corruption becomes "representation" when it conforms to your agenda. You're basically saying that it's fine for unions to hold parties and their governments at ransom because those unions represent workers. So what? It's just as damaging as big business holding government to ransom. We're talking about extremely large and powerful groups, one represents workers and the other represents shareholders. Other than that, there is no difference - they are both out for their own financial gain and we must never forget that. To me sitting here on £57.35 a week it doesn't make a damn difference, both are groups looking to screw me over for their own interests. Why should either have a finger in the government pie? What benefits one group of people does not benefit everyone. I don't usually use the phrase "level playing field" but it's what I'm trying to demonstrate here in that I don't want any special interests groups funding parties and buying their way into government no matter how moral or immoral you and I think any of them are, because it upsets that balance.

    But I still believe that we all as individuals have a right to political participation and I think funding causes you believe in, be it charity or politics, is a part of that. Rich blokes funding parties is an unwanted but unavoidable consequence of it all. I've never promised to create a perfect world, but I think it is at least a marginal improvement on what we have now with a consortium of strong and unbeatable special interests groups influencing policy.
    But at which point your right to political participation becomes corruption disguised as representation? And how is this right to political participation different to unions and individuals? I agree with a lot of things you say, so I'd like to hear more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Fernand126)
    But at which point your right to political participation becomes corruption disguised as representation? And how is this right to political participation different to unions and individuals? I agree with a lot of things you say, so I'd like to hear more.
    Look Unions are like Corporations and Corporations are People so there is no difference in political participation and the line between political participation and corruption disguised as representation is the same regardless of the amounts pledged by any individual entity.

    All are equal individual entities, only difference is capital behind them which unions get through coercing members to affiliate with 'X' party which is generally Labour, thankfully the Conservatives have more individual donors to make up the difference in donations that Labour would run away with based on Union donations alone.

    This bill doesn't equalise the playing field, it doesn't sort anything out as corruption comes and goes regardless of amounts of money being staked. The real issue is corruption and no one can stop corruption.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fernand126)
    But at which point your right to political participation becomes corruption disguised as representation? And how is this right to political participation different to unions and individuals? I agree with a lot of things you say, so I'd like to hear more.
    The idea is that everyone should be able to donate to the(ir) cause. If so many individual union members felt strongly about supporting a party, then there would be nothing to stop them.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    Crypto has summed up my point better than I ever will.

    It's funny how gross corruption becomes "representation" when it conforms to your agenda. You're basically saying that it's fine for unions to hold parties and their governments at ransom because those unions represent workers. So what? It's just as damaging as big business holding government to ransom. We're talking about extremely large and powerful groups, one represents workers and the other represents shareholders. Other than that, there is no difference - they are both out for their own financial gain and we must never forget that. To me sitting here on £57.35 a week it doesn't make a damn difference, both are groups looking to screw me over for their own interests. Why should either have a finger in the government pie? What benefits one group of people does not benefit everyone. I don't usually use the phrase "level playing field" but it's what I'm trying to demonstrate here in that I don't want any special interests groups funding parties and buying their way into government no matter how moral or immoral you and I think any of them are, because it upsets that balance.

    But I still believe that we all as individuals have a right to political participation and I think funding causes you believe in, be it charity or politics, is a part of that. Rich blokes funding parties is an unwanted but unavoidable consequence of it all. I've never promised to create a perfect world, but I think it is at least a marginal improvement on what we have now with a consortium of strong and unbeatable special interests groups influencing policy.
    So, in your eyes, we all are entitled to individual participation, even though my support will be dwarfed by some millionaire. Do you think my views will be appreciated like his? No! Is that fair? Hell no!

    So, that means me, on my £57.35 a week, can expect my wages to be targeted, my working conditions to be trampled, as unions become ineffective and big parties reach out to the wealthy businessmen. So again, wealthy people increase their influence over the nation. And I'm supposed to accept this as "unavoidable?"

    Also, Tory donors turn out to be massive tax dodgers, but it's the Unions who are grossly corrupt.

    Also, this obviously doesn't matter to you, but I certainly prefer lower earners to benefit from wage increases, more of that will re-enter the economy and probably takes fewer people off working benefits.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    So, that means me, on my £57.35 a week...

    Also, Tory donors turn out to be massive tax dodgers.

    Also, this obviously doesn't matter to you, but I certainly prefer lower earners to benefit from wage increases, more of that will re-enter the economy and probably takes fewer people off working benefits.
    How the hell do you only earn £57.35/w

    How dare you, that my dear sir is slander! :fuhrer:

    Er low earners do benefit from wage increases
    Offline

    12
    A balance needs to be struck between protecting representation and influence, whilst on the other hand controlling said influence and ensuring there are no "over-representations" of interests. I'm not sure this Bill would do this
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    How the hell do you only earn £57.35/w

    How dare you, that my dear sir is slander! :fuhrer:

    Er low earners do benefit from wage increases
    Yep, that's what I mean, I'd rather unions be supported so amount x is distributed to the working class, rather than the upper classes.

    Also, I don't earn that, I was copying what Jarred said.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Please get his name right, it's Sir Hintze with an 'E' :fuhrer:
    I'm sure he'll forgive me

    Is there an issue with his £1.5 million gift to the Conservative party? He has donated roughly £4-5 million anyway so where's the harm in throwing a million more into the pot, I'd say that you're a capitalism hater, can't stand that people have made a lot of money, so much money that they can outdo a dreadful union in terms of funding their part of choice.
    Sir Hintze is free to donate to the political party of his choice. I was simply countering the ridiculous notion that him asserting his influence is somehow more tolerable than a Union asserting their's. Unions are pressure groups representing a large number of individuals whose well-being matters. This is after all a democracy.

    As for whether or not Jarred was kicking the Labour Party in the *******s, I can't say for certain that was his goal however it is mine
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Fernand126)
    But at which point your right to political participation becomes corruption disguised as representation? And how is this right to political participation different to unions and individuals? I agree with a lot of things you say, so I'd like to hear more.
    Its simple:

    Representation - lot's of people/interests of the many (Unions and Pressure Groups)
    Corruption - one individual/his interests and his alone (One person buying the Tory Party)
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Yep, that's what I mean, I'd rather unions be supported so amount x is distributed to the working class, rather than the upper classes.

    Also, I don't earn that, I was copying what Jarred said.
    No no no, regardless of unions the working classes get wage increases in all reputable companies after X months generally after 6 month review. Why on earth do you think they don't? Being wealthy or being a union doesn't equal wage increases to anyone

    Right, don't see why you mirror what he said but okay.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 6, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.