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

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    Funny that because they Sadiq Khan is beating Zac Goldsmith in the polls in the London Mayoral Race and Labour is likely to keep power in Wales. Moreover, Labour has a good ground game in the Bristol Mayoral Election. And to be honest with you after the 2015 General Election Polls I dont think we should be relying on opinion polls for a while.
    Ordinarily i'd agree with your later point however the polling council has performed analysis as to why those polls are wrong and concluded that sampling is biased towards Labour voters. In effect they are saying that current polls are if anything underestimating the Tories.

    In the mayoral cases it's more about the personality so those are not really representative. It will be a shame if the Tories don't gain votes in Wales though even if Labour do hold power (current polls suggest that Labour will lose votes but win comfortably while the Tories more or less stand still).

    The most notable thing in May could be the council elections in which Labour look to lose 500-1000 council seats.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    Funny that because they Sadiq Khan is beating Zac Goldsmith in the polls in the London Mayoral Race and Labour is likely to keep power in Wales. Moreover, Labour has a good ground game in the Bristol Mayoral Election. And to be honest with you after the 2015 General Election Polls I dont think we should be relying on opinion polls for a while.
    What one has go remember is that London is not a good analogue for Britain as a whole, in fact the general rule of thumb is that it is an analogue for Britain in 30 years. Success in London means very little for national elections in the near future.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn only has to play a waiting game, once the financial crisis comes back, along with the SNP breaking up the union after Brexit, he can ride in a wave of popular anger into Downing St. or w/e becomes the new Kremlin in 2020.

    If Agenda 2030 is to be implemented, he will have to get in by then.
    Offline

    5
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Labour made a mistake in electing Corbyn, probably the biggest since Foot.
    If all we're doing is reducing politics down to a numbers game, then is there really any point to it at all?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by otester)
    Corbyn only has to play a waiting game, once the financial crisis comes back, along with the SNP breaking up the union after Brexit, he can ride in a wave of popular anger into Downing St. or w/e becomes the new Kremlin in 2020.

    If Agenda 2030 is to be implemented, he will have to get in by then.
    What people don't realise is that on the whole economic downturns actually favour the Tories, even when in power, and labour are most electable at the height of a boom.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by lustawny)
    If all we're doing is reducing politics down to a numbers game, then is there really any point to it at all?
    Depending what you mean specifically geared by a numbers game, it kinda is how you implement your agenda.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What people don't realise is that on the whole economic downturns actually favour the Tories, even when in power, and labour are most electable at the height of a boom.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    While I'd usually agree the next crisis won't be like previous ones where it's just a market correction, but instead will result in widespread social unrest as states and large parts of the private sector go bankrupt.
    Offline

    5
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Depending what you mean specifically geared by a numbers game, it kinda is how you implement your agenda.
    How? All I'm remarking upon is the fact that she thinks Labour electing Corbyn was their biggest mistake, simply because he's far too much of a radicalised figure for many people - which, in other words, means politics isn't played according to the strength of character of a particular politician, but instead where the popularity and (consequently) the votes/numbers fall.

    I mean, does Corbyn's unpopularity make him any less competent as a politician?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lustawny)
    How? All I'm remarking upon is the fact that she thinks Labour electing Corbyn was their biggest mistake, simply because he's far too much of a radicalised figure for many people - which, in other words, means politics isn't played according to the strength of character of a particular politician, but instead where the popularity and (consequently) the votes/numbers fall.

    I mean, does Corbyn's unpopularity make him any less competent as a politician?
    How does one define competence. He may well be a great constituency MP and i think most on the right could even acknowledge he's a nice guy at heart but there's minimal evidence of professional success in terms of really impacting politics in his decades in parliament (he's generally avoided select committees for example) and his radical views of society, defense and the constitution mean that we can't even get as far as debating his economic policy because his other policies are so extreme.

    Consider the TV debates for example. What happens when Cameron attacks him over the monarchy, leaving NATO, abandoning the Unions and our overseas territories. He'll be so bogged down that there'll be no chance to attack the Tories on economic policy. How can Labour serve the country in reigning the Tories back and bringing about their own vision if they get an ever reduced number of MP's. After 2020 it's entirely possible that Labour could require victory on the scale of Blair to achieve a majority of 1.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'll trot out the standard answer on the unions. There are if memory serves me well 15 affiliated unions, only 3 of them state that by default they are funds labour and none make clear that members can opt out, let alone how. Naturally, of it becomes an opt in system the unions will be shouting from the rafters about how you can and making oot in really clear. Is it not a massive deception to effectively force members in, and more democratic to make members who wish to back the party to opt in rather than making people opt out and make it awkward to do so?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, not at all.

    Why is it okay for corporations to pour money into the Tories to represent the interests of a handful but not okay for unions to fund labour as represents thousands of ordinary workers?

    Also as AJ12 pointed out, in 2010 Tories spent twice as much as labour.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No, not at all.

    Why is it okay for corporations to pour money into the Tories to represent the interests of a handful but not okay for unions to fund labour as represents thousands of ordinary workers?

    Also as AJ12 pointed out, in 2010 Tories spent twice as much as labour.
    What business is it of the government to interfere in the affairs of a private association of individuals? If the unions want to have a political fund that donates to Labour, that is their business. If someone doesn't like that, then they're free not to join the union.

    It's a very anti-liberty position to say that the government should force unions to do business in a particular way in terms of their constitution and governance
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Is it not a massive deception to effectively force members in, and more democratic to make members who wish to back the party to opt in rather than making people opt out and make it awkward to do so?
    What business is it of the government to interfere in the internal operations of trade unions? These are private associations of individuals, which should be free to conduct their affairs as they wish.

    The right answer to these kinds of situations is that people are free not to join a union if they do not agree with how it spends its money. It is quite contrary of the liberty of individuals to exercise a right of association as they wish for the government to come in and forcibly change their governance and constitution.

    We all know the reason the government is doing this, to cripple Labour's funding sources, while hypocritically failing to act at the same time on the other recommendations of the committee which said that private donations from wealthy individuals should be dealt with at the same time as union funding (if we are even to accept that it is reasonable for the government to interfere in the internal affairs of private associations in this manner)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No, not at all.

    Why is it okay for corporations to pour money into the Tories to represent the interests of a handful but not okay for unions to fund labour as represents thousands of ordinary workers?

    Also as AJ12 pointed out, in 2010 Tories spent twice as much as labour.
    Private enterprise 'represents' far more workers than trade unions do. Regardless, I think the point is trade unions are supposed to advocate for employment rights, not political ideology.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Private enterprise 'represents' far more workers than trade unions do. Regardless, I think the point is trade unions are supposed to advocate for employment rights, not political ideology.
    Not really though. When Private companies lobby, it's not so they can get their staff higher pay, more holiday or greater workers rights. It's often against things such as a minimum wage and for paying less tax/ getting given government contracts.

    Unions aren't perfect no, but they fight to protect ordinary workers rights and pay, rather than CEO's bank accounts.

    Unions represent their workers, private companies represent those at the very top of the hierarchy of them.


    Unions do advocate workers rights. What do you think the doctors strike was about? They are being asked to work longer or the same hours for a 30% pay cut. He's been slammed by Labour and Tory doctors alike.

    What's wrong with that? The contempt for unions is quite disturbing, why shouldn't people be allowed to pool together so they have some protections over their jobs and wages?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Not really though. When Private companies lobby, it's not so they can get their staff higher pay, more holiday or greater workers rights. It's often against things such as a minimum wage and for paying less tax/ getting given government contracts.

    Unions aren't perfect no, but they fight to protect ordinary workers rights and pay, rather than CEO's bank accounts.

    Unions represent their workers, private companies represent those at the very top of the hierarchy of them.


    Unions do advocate workers rights. What do you think the doctors strike was about? They are being asked to work longer or the same hours for a 30% pay cut. He's been slammed by Labour and Tory doctors alike.

    What's wrong with that? The contempt for unions is quite disturbing, why shouldn't people be allowed to pool together so they have some protections over their jobs and wages?
    Lobbying is a different issue to party funding. Regardless, corporate funding amounted to just 3% of donations. Most were from individuals, and even then as Lord Ashcroft found out, you can't buy your way into influence.
    Plus 11 million Britons are shareholders and millions more are indirectly through their pension, compared with 6 million in trade union, so I think my comment still stands. Private enterprise represents more people than trade unions do.

    I meant in general. If we're cherry-picking, the London tube drivers once went on strike to demand they rehire two colleagues who got sacked for stealing and another who got fired after continuously opening the doors at the wrong station (ie. being rubbish at his job).

    What's wrong with what? I specifically implied unions should be allowed to do that, what I disagree with is them preaching national politics.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Lobbying is a different issue to party funding. Regardless, corporate funding amounted to just 3% of donations. Most were from individuals, and even then as Lord Ashcroft found out, you can't buy your way into influence.
    Plus 11 million Britons are shareholders and millions more are indirectly through their pension, compared with 6 million in trade union, so I think my comment still stands. Private enterprise represents more people than trade unions do.

    I meant in general. If we're cherry-picking, the London tube drivers once went on strike to demand they rehire two colleagues who got sacked for stealing and another who got fired after continuously opening the doors at the wrong station (ie. being rubbish at his job).

    What's wrong with what? I specifically implied unions should be allowed to do that, what I disagree with is them preaching national politics.
    Party funding then. Unions exist to represent their members. When they donate to a party, they do so as they believe it is best for their members, ordinary workers. Corporations do not represent their workers, they don't donate to a party because they want their workers to be given better wages, more secure contracts and more protections at work, if anything quite the opposite.

    Corporations and CEOs represent their own and people at the top of the hierarchy's interests, unions represent ordinary workers' interests.

    Of course you can buy influence, you cite Lord Ashcroft as one example but how about Bernie Ecclestone who donated huge amounts to Blair and then Formula 1 was the only sport where smoking advertisements were allowed? How about the likes of Jonny Nasj, Chairman of a private UK health provider who donates heavily to the tories and gets awarded NHS contracts? What about the cash for peerages scandal where those who gave much money to Labour were awarded peerages by Blair?

    Money most certainly buys influence, not all the time but much of it.

    What do you mean about unions preaching national politics? If their workers are being screwed over by the government what are they supposed to do?
    What have the doctors union done wrong?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    14pt is huge.. Especially in comic sans.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Party funding then. Unions exist to represent their members. When they donate to a party, they do so as they believe it is best for their members, ordinary workers. Corporations do not represent their workers, they don't donate to a party because they want their workers to be given better wages, more secure contracts and more protections at work, if anything quite the opposite.

    Corporations and CEOs represent their own and people at the top of the hierarchy's interests, unions represent ordinary workers' interests.

    Of course you can buy influence, you cite Lord Ashcroft as one example but how about Bernie Ecclestone who donated huge amounts to Blair and then Formula 1 was the only sport where smoking advertisements were allowed? How about the likes of Jonny Nasj, Chairman of a private UK health provider who donates heavily to the tories and gets awarded NHS contracts? What about the cash for peerages scandal where those who gave much money to Labour were awarded peerages by Blair?

    Money most certainly buys influence, not all the time but much of it.

    What do you mean about unions preaching national politics? If their workers are being screwed over by the government what are they supposed to do?
    What have the doctors union done wrong?
    Corporations represent their shareholders. There are more shareholders than trade union members. Ergo the claim that corporations represent the few was false. They represent more Brits than trade unions do. Pretty simple logic.

    There's a big difference between someone who donated specifically under the assumption they'd get a cabinet position, and people who donate and happen to get contracts for work they bid for. Unless you have proof the contract award was tied to the bid?
    And yes cash-for-peerages was a major national scandal, I don't think anyone has ever condoned it. I was specifically talking about the Tories anyway, Blair being a slimy snake isn't news at all.

    I mean trade unions should deal with specific labour issues, not have a general broad anti-Tory political agenda.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Corporations represent their shareholders. There are more shareholders than trade union members. Ergo the claim that corporations represent the few was false. They represent more Brits than trade unions do. Pretty simple logic.

    There's a big difference between someone who donated specifically under the assumption they'd get a cabinet position, and people who donate and happen to get contracts for work they bid for. Unless you have proof the contract award was tied to the bid?
    And yes cash-for-peerages was a major national scandal, I don't think anyone has ever condoned it. I was specifically talking about the Tories anyway, Blair being a slimy snake isn't news at all.

    I mean trade unions should deal with specific labour issues, not have a general broad anti-Tory political agenda.
    They don't 'represent shareholders'. Or rather if they are it is most certainly and substantially secondary to the CEOs' and owners interests. The difference to shareholders is minuscule. Do you think when CEOs lobby or party fund they are representing their shareholders interests? Of course not, they are representing their own.

    And i'd say ensuring that workers rights are protected is far more important than making sure shareholders get a few quid while CEOs get millions.

    You're really straining the word 'represent'.

    Compare that to unions who support members pay, members contracts, members protections at work as their primary and only goal.

    Do you really think corporations represent ordinary people and workers the same way unions do? Corporations don't want their shareholders to have greater wages and greater protections do they?

    Further to that, unions are represented by democratically elected leaders, corporations are not.
    As for a link, well it looks incredibly shady that a wealthy businessman gives lots of money to the tories and then gets awarded NHS contracts on the cheap. Maybe its a massive coincidence, but I would hesitate a guess that it didn't harm his chances.

    As to the poltiical point, well the only reason they have a broad anti-tory message is because the tories have throughout history emasculated the unions, watered their rights down, given their workers less protection etc. The unions also disliked new labour for the same reasoning.

    Trade unions do reflect labor issues - hence the recent junior doctors action which had support across the poltical spectrum.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They don't 'represent shareholders'. Or rather if they are it is most certainly and substantially secondary to the CEOs' and owners interests. The difference to shareholders is minuscule. Do you think when CEOs lobby or party fund they are representing their shareholders interests? Of course not, they are representing their own.

    And i'd say ensuring that workers rights are protected is far more important than making sure shareholders get a few quid while CEOs get millions.

    You're really straining the word 'represent'.

    Compare that to unions who support members pay, members contracts, members protections at work as their primary and only goal.

    Do you really think corporations represent ordinary people and workers the same way unions do? Corporations don't want their shareholders to have greater wages and greater protections do they?

    Further to that, unions are represented by democratically elected leaders, corporations are not.
    As for a link, well it looks incredibly shady that a wealthy businessman gives lots of money to the tories and then gets awarded NHS contracts on the cheap. Maybe its a massive coincidence, but I would hesitate a guess that it didn't harm his chances.

    As to the poltiical point, well the only reason they have a broad anti-tory message is because the tories have throughout history emasculated the unions, watered their rights down, given their workers less protection etc. The unions also disliked new labour for the same reasoning.

    Trade unions do reflect labor issues - hence the recent junior doctors action which had support across the poltical spectrum.
    Who owns a company? THE SHAREHOLDERS.
    The whole point of a business is a vehicle to make money for it's shareholders. Every profit motivated idea a business does is on behalf of it's shareholders, to increase the value of their asset- the shares- and dividend payments. I know in left-wing cuckoo land you're taught only the select few richest own shares, but in actual reality millions and millions of ordinary Brits do, either directly or indirectly through funds and pensions.

    We'll have to beg to differ on what trade union's 'only' goals are.

    Corporations do want their shareholders to have more money. Money is quite a vital commodity in life. Whether you agree with a money-driven agenda or not is irrelevant. Corporations 'represent' a lot of people, simply in a different are than trade unions, and many on the left have little comprehension of how much their anti-business agenda actually does affect 'ordinary' people.

    Many corporations have their board and CEO positions approved by the shareholders. Regardless, little relevance to the point.

    How cheap? Were they actually undervalued, or is this a continuation of your normal recent trend of making up statistics on the fly?

    I'm not referring to the doctor strike. I'm talking generally. I never said all unions are like this. It's only the more militant ones I'm concerned about.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: February 18, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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