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

B700 - Political Parties Funding Bill 2014 Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    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.
    Perhaps you didn't read my previous post. This year one man donated £1.5mil to the Tories (that's more than the total donations made to the Liberal Democrats by the way and around 3 times more than the total donations made to UKIP). On the other hand Unite donated £1.8mil to Labour and that was the party's biggest donation. Ergo a Union donation is not '10+ rich blokes'. As for a 'PR disaster' this really only applies to Labour, the Party the Union's actually donate to. They can still strike whilst a Tory/Coalition/whatever government is in power.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    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)
    However in practice if both say 'enact this policy or I'll walk' (which they do).
    Example 1 (U&PGs): Lots of money lost and potentially massive strikes.
    Example 2 (People): Some money lost with no other repercussions.

    If Unions were banned from donating then surely the individuals (who belong to) could donate themselves? They both attempt to steer public policy in (usually) complete self interest.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    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.
    The reason we have Unions at all is so that may be stronger by their collective endeavour and thereby ensuring that the interests of the working class are given the appropriate level of representation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    However in practice if both say 'enact this policy or I'll walk' (which they do).
    Example 1 (U&PGs): Lots of money lost and potentially massive strikes.
    Example 2 (People): Some money lost with no other repercussions.

    If Unions were banned from donating then surely the individuals (who belong to) could donate themselves? They both attempt to steer public policy in (usually) complete self interest.
    I thought I already told you that the amount of money that would be lost is very close.
    Anyway, they can only make the 'money lost' threat against Labour and even if there ability to donate is curbed they can strike on ANY government. Unions lobby to Tories too you know.


    Basically all you're arguing is that Unions have more influence than individuals. Well to that I say yes, and a jolly good thing it is to.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    However in practice if both say 'enact this policy or I'll walk' (which they do).
    Example 1 (U&PGs): Lots of money lost and potentially massive strikes.
    Example 2 (People): Some money lost with no other repercussions.

    If Unions were banned from donating then surely the individuals (who belong to) could donate themselves? They both attempt to steer public policy in (usually) complete self interest.
    How is the point about strikes relevant though? This legislation doesn't stop them influencing policy via industrial action or the threat of it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Perhaps you didn't read my previous post. This year one man donated £1.5mil to the Tories (that's more than the total donations made to the Liberal Democrats by the way and around 3 times more than the total donations made to UKIP). On the other hand Unite donated £1.8mil to Labour and that was the party's biggest donation. Ergo a Union donation is not '10+ rich blokes'. As for a 'PR disaster' this really only applies to Labour, the Party the Union's actually donate to. They can still strike whilst a Tory/Coalition/whatever government is in power.
    However you can see that you are cherry picking rare examples. John Mills has donated over £1.65million to Labour since the GE. In most cases unions will donate 10 times more than individuals.

    If we look at two of Labour's biggest donators we can see that Unite provided £20m since the 2010GE (20% of Labour's funding). I doubt that the Labour party could afford to refuse any demands they made (Falkirk). The fact that Unions have more influence than individuals means that whereas the Tory party can turn away people, Labour cannot turn away most unons, therefore are at their calling 'Lock, stock and barrel'.

    As to the claims about representation, Unite's general secretary said that if the Union's members weren't automatically enrolled only 50,000 would affiliate with Labour.
    • Offline

      15
      (Original post by RayApparently)
      I'm sure he'll forgive me

      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.
      Doubt it, heard he already sent a hit squad :lol:

      It is more tolerable as the party can turn him away whereas with a Union donating huge sums of money with the power to call industrial action to disrupt day to day running of vital services, that isn't a democracy.
      Offline

      22
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      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.
      No, but union workers will be more likely to get pay increases etc. Than non-union staff.
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by That Bearded Man)
      No, but union workers will be more likely to get pay increases etc. Than non-union staff.
      Are they more likely to be promoted?
      • Offline

        15
        (Original post by That Bearded Man)
        No, but union workers will be more likely to get pay increases etc. Than non-union staff.
        Well that's BS, unions have too much power as it is and this is why they should be liquidated. Non-union members should be offered the same opportunities as union members which is on merit. Ban the unions! :fuhrer:
        • Wiki Support Team
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Cryptographic)
        However you can see that you are cherry picking rare examples. John Mills has donated over £1.65million to Labour since the GE. In most cases unions will donate 10 times more than individuals.
        I didn't cherry pick I used the 2 largest donations to the respective parties from the most recent information (early 2014) I could find.

        Also that was a donation to Labour. We were talking about individual donations to the Conservatives :?

        Anyway, Unions represent a million times more people than an individual thus they donate 10x more? Seems legit.

        If we look at two of Labour's biggest donators we can see that Unite provided £20m since the 2010GE (20% of Labour's funding). I doubt that the Labour party could afford to refuse any demands they made (Falkirk). The fact that Unions have more influence than individuals means that whereas the Tory party can turn away people, Labour cannot turn away most unons, therefore are at their calling 'Lock, stock and barrel'.

        As to the claims about representation, Unite's general secretary said that if the Union's members weren't automatically enrolled only 50,000 would affiliate with Labour.
        Labour is a party born from the Trade Union movement. I see no ******* with letting them influence Labour. As a party Labour should seek to represent everyone wether or not they 'affiliate with Labour'. The crucial thing you're forgetting is that this is how Trade Unions influence Labour, not how they influence the government of the day. Just because you unfairly stop them from donating (whilst allowing individuals to donate similar amounts to the Conservatives as Jarred suggested) they will still be able to strike against any government and influence legislation that way. So why exactly should Labour suddenly lose the vast majority of its funding whilst (if indeed you are supporting Jarred's suggestion) the Tories keep getting fed by Russian Oligarchs and the like?
        • Wiki Support Team
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by tehFrance)
        It is more tolerable as the party can turn him away whereas with a Union donating huge sums of money with the power to call industrial action to disrupt day to day running of vital services, that isn't a democracy.
        This is a debate about donations not wether or not there should be Trade Unions at all.
        The Unions will still be able to strike even if this bill is passed regardless of which party is in power. This bill doesn't address what appears to be your concerns - that the threat of industrial action gives Unions too much influence. This bill won't make the system more democratic which is of course why I won't support it.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by RayApparently)
        I didn't cherry pick I used the 2 largest donations to the respective parties from the most recent information (early 2014) I could find.

        Also that was a donation to Labour. We were talking about individual donations to the Conservatives :?

        Anyway, Unions represent a million times more people than an individual thus they donate 10x more? Seems legit.



        Labour is a party born from the Trade Union movement. I see no ******* with letting them influence Labour. As a party Labour should seek to represent everyone wether or not they 'affiliate with Labour'. The crucial thing you're forgetting is that this is how Trade Unions influence Labour, not how they influence the government of the day. Just because you unfairly stop them from donating (whilst allowing individuals to donate similar amounts to the Conservatives as Jarred suggested) they will still be able to strike against any government and influence legislation that way. So why exactly should Labour suddenly lose the vast majority of its funding whilst (if indeed you are supporting Jarred's suggestion) the Tories keep getting fed by Russian Oligarchs and the like?
        I disagree with people having to choose between supporting Labour or not having a Union. I also disagree with one donor donating 5-10%+ of one party's funding. It just happens that someUnions consistently fall foul of these.

        However in regards to the Union 'representing a million more people' UNISON said that they would have to work hard to get even 50,000 of their members to support Labour.

        The point you are not grasping is that Labour is held hostage to one or two unions and would go bankrupt without them. Therefore they are bought by the unions. The Conservative party can tell any donor they want to **** off because they are individually very small percentages of total funding. Therefore people who donate to the Conservative party tend to be inline with the policies proposed by the current leader, therefore it is not so much 'bought' like Labour but are merely supported without any change in direction.

        The Russian oligarch argument is a weak argument and you know it.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by RayApparently)
        This bill won't make the system more democratic which is of course why I won't support it.
        But it does, if the individuals in the union wanted to support the Labour party, they still could.
        Offline

        22
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by tehFrance)
        Well that's BS, unions have too much power as it is and this is why they should be liquidated. Non-union members should be offered the same opportunities as union members which is on merit. Ban the unions! :fuhrer:
        Sorry, you've misconstrued. I mean that if, say, the RMT didn't and never existed, there is no doubt that their pay and conditions would be worse off than now, having a union is definitely positive for workers.

        As it currently stands, something I disagree with, is that all union members will receive the benefits, regardless of who does or doesn't strike.
        Offline

        22
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Rakas21)
        Are they more likely to be promoted?
        I doubt it, I could have put this better. I'm just reminded of a twitter photo of Boeing in America who removed the pension plans for all non-union members but kept them for union members, hence showing the benefits of a union.
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by That Bearded Man)
        I doubt it, I could have put this better. I'm just reminded of a twitter photo of Boeing in America who removed the pension plans for all non-union members but kept them for union members, hence showing the benefits of a union.
        Well there you go, its the promotions I want and the big pay rises to go with it.
        Sure, if there were a non political and striking union I'd be tempted.
        • Wiki Support Team
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Cryptographic)
        I disagree with people having to choose between supporting Labour or not having a Union. I also disagree with one donor donating 5-10%+ of one party's funding. It just happens that someUnions consistently fall foul of these.

        However in regards to the Union 'representing a million more people' UNISON said that they would have to work hard to get even 50,000 of their members to support Labour.

        The point you are not grasping is that Labour is held hostage to one or two unions and would go bankrupt without them. Therefore they are bought by the unions. The Conservative party can tell any donor they want to **** off because they are individually very small percentages of total funding. Therefore people who donate to the Conservative party tend to be inline with the policies proposed by the current leader, therefore it is not so much 'bought' like Labour but are merely supported without any change in direction.

        The Russian oligarch argument is a weak argument and you know it.
        Let me start by quoting an article in the Guardian: "[it is] wrong to equate the unions providing funds to Labour with rich individuals making donations to the Conservatives. Union leaders are elected by members; unions have to secure members’ permission to maintain a political fund by secret ballot at least once every 10 years; and union members have the legal right to opt out of paying the political levy. Contrast this with the unaccountability of oligarchs, hedge fund chiefs and private equity firms buying influence with the Tories."

        When I said the Unions represent many people I was justifying their political influence not their donating habits because as I've already said they would still have that influence with or without this bill. Unions can strike against any Government, even Maggie Thatcher's.

        The individuals backing the Tory party aren't 'very small percentages'. One mans donation to the Tory party is comparable to one Trade Unions donation to the Labour party and these aren't cherry picked figures because these are to the 2 largest donations to the respective parties in 2014.

        You seriously think that the Russians and the man who donated £1.5mil to the Conservative party have no influence over their policy? You think Cameron will say no to a million pound donation? Total party donations to the Conservative party have only been around £6mil+ this year. That is not a small percentage.

        Labour is a trade unionist party, what does that make the Conservative party?

        You're arguing to give the Conservatives a massive electoral advantage because its supporters are richer. Not better. Not wiser or more worthy just richer. That isn't democracy that's party political corruption. I move to maintain the broken but salvageable status-quo by voting against this bill and any spin-off bill proposed later on to place limitations on Unions exclusively.
        • Wiki Support Team
        Offline

        20
        ReputationRep:
        I'd just like to say that this debate is exactly what makes the MHoC so much fun
        • Offline

          15
          (Original post by RayApparently)
          This is a debate about donations not wether or not there should be Trade Unions at all.
          The Unions will still be able to strike even if this bill is passed regardless of which party is in power. This bill doesn't address what appears to be your concerns - that the threat of industrial action gives Unions too much influence. This bill won't make the system more democratic which is of course why I won't support it.
          I'm aware of what this bill is for and it doesn't achieve it's goal. Donations don't equal influence as Unions can screw us all regardless but they help Labour out whereas they don't help the Tories which is why this is being brought in as it restricts Tory fund raising.
          (Original post by That Bearded Man)
          Sorry, you've misconstrued. I mean that if, say, the RMT didn't and never existed, there is no doubt that their pay and conditions would be worse off than now, having a union is definitely positive for workers.

          As it currently stands, something I disagree with, is that all union members will receive the benefits, regardless of who does or doesn't strike.
          I did no such thing. Good night. :moon:
         
         
         
        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
        Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      • 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.