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

B700 - Political Parties Funding Bill 2014 Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    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.
    So have you decided how you'll vote? (because it appears we've been having a different, though interesting, debate that the one being posited)
    Offline

    22
    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.
    Hardly a fair argument, basically you're saying it's a matter of money. I get your point about Tories being able to survive more without one donor than Labour without one of the major unions. Considering the influence they buy however, private firms bankrolling the Tories are pre-paying for contracts. Tory donors buy more influence than Labour members do.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Unions probably worked out that being apolitical means they were just ignored.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, this will increase transparency and remove the influence of big-money donors.

    It's a far better alternative to state funding.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Aye, this will increase transparency and remove the influence of big-money donors.

    It's a far better alternative to state funding.
    (1) Political parties with at least 7 Members of the European Parliament, will receive £1.25 per vote at the start of a new term in the European Parliament.
    (2) Political parties with at least 7 Members of Parliament will receive £1.25 per vote at the start of a new Parliamentary term.

    This gives state funding to parties, if this section was removed then an aye.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    (1) Political parties with at least 7 Members of the European Parliament, will receive £1.25 per vote at the start of a new term in the European Parliament.
    (2) Political parties with at least 7 Members of Parliament will receive £1.25 per vote at the start of a new Parliamentary term.

    This gives state funding to parties, if this section was removed then an aye.
    I would agree - it isn't clear where they would 'receive' this money from and I oppose any form of state funding.
    • Offline

      15
      (Original post by RayApparently)
      So have you decided how you'll vote? (because it appears we've been having a different, though interesting, debate that the one being posited)
      I can't vote however I'm against it, I can afford to donate more than enough for to join "The Leaders Group" which gets me direct access to the PM at dinners, lunches, campaign launches etc. why on earth would I want that to disappear as that would be what happens under this, you can't have donor clubs although I suppose the upside is no trade union donations
      • Wiki Support Team
      • Welcome Squad
      Offline

      18
      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.

      Posted from TSR Mobile
      It's difficult to know exactly when, I'd maybe support caps at the more extreme end of the spectrum I suppose, but I don't want any state funding at all and I don't want organisations involved.

      (Original post by That Bearded Man)
      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!
      Meh, that's the luck of the draw. We can't all be millionaires and there's nothing wrong with that, your contribution is already being dwarfed by millionaires, unions and private business. I'm asking to take the latter two out of the equation, in relative terms it could even be good for you. As I said, I know it's not perfect but I think it's an improvement.

      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?"
      Well on my £57.35 a week I don't even get wages. I get paid to be abused by the Job Centre every Thursday. I could just as easily argue that rampant union corruption is harming me personally. I could say that that unionization and wage controls produce higher wages at the expense of less jobs. That by increasing the price of labour artificially as unionization does will lead an increase in unemployment. Personally I think these things are almost certainly true but I don't think the effect is particularly big, alas, the point I am trying to make is that unionization isn't this perfect being that can do no wrong as you seem to think. Unions are good for the members, but there are only 6 million of those guys. What about everyone else? The argument that unions represent the majority of this country's working people is quite frankly laughable. They do not. They represent a minority of reasonably well off (in comparison to a lot of non-unionised) workers at the expense of everyone else be it working class non-union workers, middle class consumers or upper class business owners. Hell, there are more shareholders in the UK (circa 9mn) than there are union workers and yet pretty much everyone would agree that allowing private business to influence politics is bad. I know I would. Why are union workers looking out for their own financial interests any more entitled to participate in corruption than businesses who comprise more people? Corruption is corruption, it's bad all over. I don't think any organisation be it a union, a business, a charity, a cooperative etc. should be let anywhere near our system at all. At least I'm consistent on that.

      Also, Tory donors turn out to be massive tax dodgers, but it's the Unions who are grossly corrupt.
      Close the loopholes then, I'd vote for it.

      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.
      As covered before, unions do not help the unemployed. I'm not convinced the effect is particularly large but artificially increased labour prices can only decrease the amount of jobs on offer whilst also potentially leading to a fall in wages in non-unionized industries. They only benefit the people already in jobs, already in union jobs in fact. Milton Friedman, whilst a little bit too right wing for my tastes, has done a lot on that topic if I recall correctly.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      I think we need a second reading and taking out state funding would probably be best as it looks like unanimity.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      This is in cessation.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      This item has been withdrawn.
     
     
     
    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
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. 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.

  4. 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.